1655535.2 7203-001
D. The best interests of the citizens of the city are served by reducing direct and indirect campaign contributions.
E. The city finds that limitations on contributions of money, services and materials by individuals or groups to municipal election campaigns should be imposed by law to protect the public health, safety and welfare. These limitations, however, should be reasonable so as not to discourage personal expression or participation in the political process.
F. Campaign spending for municipal office campaigns is escalating to dangerous and unreasonable levels. The integrity of the legislative process, the competitiveness of campaigns, and public confidence in elected municipal officials are all diminishing because of the perceived effects of large campaign contributions. (Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 2)
2.18.030 Purpose and intent.
The city council of the city enacts the ordinance codified in this chapter to accomplish the following purposes:
A. To encourage public trust in the electoral and decision-making processes of the city, and to ensure that individuals and interest groups have a fair and equal opportunity to participate in the elective and legislative process;
B. To reduce the potential for influence by large contributors with a specific financial stake in matters before the city, thus countering the perception that decisions of municipal officials are influenced by the size of contributions rather than by the merits of proposals and the best interests of the people of the city;
C. To encourage smaller contributions;
D. To help ensure public trust in the city’s legislative and electoral institutions; E. To limit the use of loans and credit in the financing of political campaigns for city elective office;
F. To provide, in conjunction with the Political Reform Act and the regulations adopted by the California Fair Political Practices Commission implementing the Political Reform Act, a comprehensive system for regulating the conduct of campaigns for city elective office which, for example, prohibits defined officials from receiving or soliciting campaign contributions of more than two five hundred fifty dollars from defined persons during proceedings before the city in which such defined persons are interested and for three months thereafter (Government Code Section 84308). (Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 2)
2.18.040 Definitions.
Unless a particular word or phrase is otherwise specifically defined in this chapter, or the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the definitions set forth in the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Government Code Section 81000 et seq.) shall govern the constructions, meaning and application of words and phrases used in this chapter. References to particular sections of the Government Code or other statutes or laws, including references in this section, shall be deemed to include any changes to such sections, statutes or laws, including any amendments, deletions, additions, renumberings or recodifications that may occur subsequent to the enactment of the ordinance codified in this chapter. “California Political Reform Act” means the California Political Reform Act, Government Code Section 81000 et seq., and implementing regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission set forth in Title 2 of the California Administrative Code Section 18000 et seq., as they may be modified from time to time.
“Campaign contribution account” means an account established pursuant to California Government Code Section 85201.
“Candidate” means an individual who has filed a statement pursuant to California Government Code Section 85200 indicating an intent to run for city elective office. “City” means the city of West Sacramento.
573
Ordinance 23-11
1655535.2 7203-001
“City elective office” means the office of mayor and the office of city council member. “Contribution” means contribution as defined in California Government Code Section 82015, and shall include nonmonetary contributions, extensions of credit, and loans (including credit card advances) to the extent that these are considered contributions pursuant to California Government Code Section 84216, subject to the following:
1. Unsecured Loans. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, if the loan is not secured or guaranteed, it shall be considered a contribution from the lender and shall be subject to the contribution limits of this chapter.
2. Secured or Guaranteed Loans. Notwithstanding California Government Code Section 84216, a loan which is secured or guaranteed shall be considered a contribution from the lender and guarantor or person whose property secures the loan and shall be subject to the contribution limits of this chapter, except as otherwise provided in subsection 3.
3. Loans to Candidates from Commercial Lending Institutions. A loan made to a candidate by a commercial lending institution in the regular course of business on the same terms available to members of the public which is either unsecured, personally guaranteed by the candidate, or secured by property owned by the candidate, shall not be considered a contribution from the lender. Such loans shall, however, be considered a contribution of personal funds from the candidate for the purpose of Section 2.18.050(A). “Controlled committee” means a controlled committee as defined in California Government Code Section 82016.
“Election cycle” means:
1. For general elections to city elective office, the period from the day after the election until the day of the next election for the same city elective office;
2. For special elections to city elective office, the period from the day on which the seat becomes vacant until the day of the special election;
3. In the case of a recall, the period from the date of the filing of the notice of intention to circulate a recall petition until the date of the election. This election cycle shall also apply to candidates to fill a vacancy in the city elective office that may be created by such recall. “Late contribution” means a late contribution as defined in California Government Code Section 82036, except that for purposes of this chapter, the dollar threshold contained in Section 82036 shall be revised to read five hundred dollarsthe maximum contribution limit as specified in Section 2.18. 05 0(A)(1) or (2) (as applicable) for the period beginning ninety days prior to the election and ending seventeen days prior to the election, and one hundred dollars for the period beginning sixteen days prior to the election. “Person” means an individual or any proprietorship, labor union, firm, partnership, joint venture, syndicate, business trust, company, corporation, association, political action committee, committee or any other entity or organization or group of persons, however organized. (Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 2)
2.18.050 Contribution limitations.
A. Contribution Limits to City Council Elections.
1. Limitation on Contribution from Persons to Candidate for City Elective Office. No person shall make, and no candidate for city elective office or a controlled committee of the candidate or person acting by or on behalf of the candidate or the candidate’s controlled committee shall accept, any contribution which would cause the total amount contributed by that person during any election cycle to the candidate, or to the candidate’s controlled committee, to exceed two five hundred fifty dollars.
2. Contribution of Personal Funds to a Candidate’s Own Campaign. Nothing in this section is intended to limit the amount a candidate may contribute to his or her campaign for city elective office from his or her personal funds; provided, however, that if a candidate contributes more than two thousand five hundred dollars during an election cycle to his or her campaign from his or her personal funds, then the limitation on contributions that may be made to or accepted by all candidates for the same city elective office, and their controlled committees, 574
Ordinance 23-11
1655535.2 7203-001
shall be increased to five hundred dollars. Loans made to a candidate by a commercial lending institution in the regular course of business on the same terms available to members of the public will be considered a contribution of personal funds for purposes of this section.
A candidate who contributes more than two thousand five hundred dollars during an election cycle to his or her campaign from his or her personal funds shall notify the city clerk in writing within twenty-four hours after making the contribution that causes the total contributed by the candidate to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars, which notification shall be available for review by the public upon receipt by the city clerk. Notification shall be provided by one of the following methods:
a. Facsimile transmission;
b. Telegram;
c. Guaranteed overnight delivery through the United States Postal Service; or d. Personal delivery.
3. Written Solicitations by Candidates. Any candidate or his or her controlled committee making a written solicitation for a contribution for the candidate’s campaign for city elective office shall include the following written notice in no less than eight-point type on each such solicitation:
NOTICE
The West Sacramento Municipal Code limits the amount a contributor may give to a candidate for elective office to an aggregate total of two five hundred fifty dollars. This includes contributions to the candidate, and to persons or committees controlled by the candidate.
If the maximum contribution amount for a candidate has been increased to five hundred dollars pursuant to Section
2.18.050(A), the dollar amount in that candidate’s written notices may be increased from two hundred fifty dollars to five hundred dollars.
4. Exception for Campaign Indebtedness. A contribution specifically made to, accepted by and expended by a candidate or incumbent for the purpose of eliminating campaign debts incurred by the candidate or incumbent in the course of a previous campaign for city elective office shall be considered a contribution made and accepted during the election cycle in which the debts were incurred. (Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 2)
2.18.070 Making and acceptance of a contribution.
For purposes of this chapter, a contribution shall be considered to have been “made” and “accepted” as follows:
A. Monetary Contributions.
1. Making of Monetary Contributions. For purposes of the contribution limitations of this chapter, a monetary contribution is “made” on the date the contribution is mailed, delivered or otherwise transmitted to the candidate or controlled committee. The date of the check or other negotiable instrument by which the contribution is made may be presumed by the candidate, committee, or person receiving the contribution to be the date on which the contribution is mailed, delivered or otherwise transmitted, unless it is known to the candidate, committee, or person receiving the contribution to be later than the date the contribution is mailed, delivered or otherwise transmitted, in which case the earlier date shall be considered the date on which the contribution is “made.”
2. Acceptance of Monetary Contributions. For purposes of the contribution limits of this chapter, a monetary contribution shall be deemed “accepted” on the date that it is made; provided that a monetary contribution shall not be considered accepted for purposes of this chapter if it is not cashed, negotiated or deposited and, in addition, is returned to the donor within fourteen days of receipt.
575
Ordinance 23-11
1655535.2 7203-001
B. Nonmonetary Contributions.
1. Making of Nonmonetary Contributions. A nonmonetary contribution is “made” by the contributor on the earlier of the following dates:
a. The date that funds are expended by the contributor for goods or services if the specific expenditure is made at the request of the candidate or controlled committee; b. The date that the candidate or controlled committee, or agent of the candidate or controlled committee obtains possession or control of the goods or services; or c. The date that the candidate or controlled committee otherwise receives the benefit of the expenditure.
2. Acceptance of Nonmonetary Contributions. A nonmonetary contribution is deemed “accepted” on the date that it is “made” by the contributor; provided that a nonmonetary contribution shall be deemed not to have been accepted for purposes of this chapter if it is returned within fourteen days of having been made by returning to the contributor any of the following:
a. The nonmonetary contribution;
b. Its monetary equivalent; or
c. The monetary amount by which the value of the nonmonetary contribution exceeds the contribution limits of this chapter.
(Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 2)
2.18.080 Aggregation of contributions.
A. All contributions made during an election cycle directly to a candidate or to any of the candidate’s controlled committees shall be aggregated for purposes of the two-hundredfiftyfive hundred-dollar individual contribution limitation established in Section 2.18.050(A).
B. The limit established in Section 2.18.050 pertains to the aggregate total of all contributions made during an election cycle for or against a candidate for elective office. This amount includes the total of the contributions to the candidate or to the candidate’s controlled committees for or against the candidate.
C. All payments made by a person or organization whose contributions or expenditure activities are financed, maintained or controlled by any corporation, labor organization, association, political party or any other person or committee, including any parent, subsidiary, branch, division, department or local unit of the corporation, labor organization, association, political party or any other person, or by any group of such persons, shall be considered to be made by the person financing, maintaining or controlling the contribution or expenditure.
D. Two or more persons shall be treated as one and the same person for purposes of the contribution limitations set forth in Section 2.18.050, and their contributions shall be aggregated and shall not exceed the limitations set forth in Section 2.18.050, in the following situations:
1. Related Entities. Two or more entities shall be treated as one person when such entities:
a. Share the majority of members of their boards of directors, b. Share two or more corporate officers,
c. Are owned or controlled by the same majority shareholder or shareholders, or d. Are in a parent-subsidiary relationship. A parent-subsidiary relationship exists when one corporation directly or indirectly owns shares possessing more than fifty percent of the voting power of another corporation;
2. Controlling Interest. A person and any general or limited partnership in which the person is a general partner, or a person and any corporation in which the person owns a controlling interest, shall be treated as one person. For purposes of this subsection, a controlling interest in a corporation means fifty percent or more of the voting power of a corporation.
E. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 2.18.130, candidates and controlled committees shall not be deemed to be in violation of this section if any of them accepts a 576
Ordinance 23-11
1655535.2 7203-001
contribution from a person that was made in violation of the contribution limits of this chapter. It is the intent of this section to make contributors, and not candidates or controlled committees liable for violations occurring as a result of the applicability of this chapter to contribution limits.
F. A candidate for city elective office may transfer campaign funds from one controlled committee to another controlled committee of the same candidate. Contributions transferred shall be attributed to specific contributors using methods set forth in the Political Reform Act. Transferred funds, when aggregated with all other contributions from the same contributor, may not exceed the limits set forth in Section 2.18.050. (Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 2)
2.18.090 Contributions by spouses and children.
A. Contributions by a husband and wife shall be treated as separate contributions and shall not be aggregated.
B. Contributions by dependent children shall be treated as contributions by their parents and attributed proportionately to each parent (one-half to each parent or the total amount to a single custodial parent). (Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 2)
2.18.100 Contributions by spouse, children or family members of candidate.
Contributions to a candidate by his or her spouse, children or any other family member shall be subject to the contribution limits of this chapter. (Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 2)
2.18.110 Effective date of contribution limitations.
A. Notwithstanding the date of adoption and the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter, and except as otherwise provided in subsections B and C of this section, the contribution limits of this chapter shall apply to contributions made on or after January 1, 1993, to :
1. Aany candidate for city elective office, including an incumbent, who sought or who will seek election in any election for city elective office. Contributions made prior to January 1, 1993, shall not be considered for purposes of the individual contribution limits contained in Sections 2.18.050 and 2.18.080.; and
B. Contributions made prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 02-5, shall not be considered or aggregated for purposes of the contribution limits contained in Sections
2.18.050(B) and 2.18.080(B).
C. No candidate or controlled committee shall be deemed to have violated any provisions of this chapter solely because contributions in excess of the limitations contained in Sections 2.18.050 and 2.18.080 were accepted or made before the date specified in subsection A or B of this section. Nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to require the return of any contribution made prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this chapter. (Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 2)
2.18.120 Application of state laws.
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to exempt any person from complying with applicable provisions of any other laws of this state, including, but not limited to, the contribution limitations contained within the California Political Reform Act for special elections. (Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 2)
2.18.130 Enforcement.
A. Any person who willfully or knowingly violates any provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor.
577
Ordinance 23-11
1655535.2 7203-001
B. If the city clerk discovers through a campaign statement that any provision of this chapter has been violated, the city clerk shall promptly notify the District Attorney. (Ord. 14-2 § 2; Ord. 11-5 § 2; Ord. 10-9 § 2; Ord. 04-11 § 2; Ord. 02-5 § 22311) Section 3. Severability. If any provision of this chapter, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of those provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable.
Section 4. Effective Date and Publication. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption, and pursuant to Resolution 99-46 was published in summary format prior to adoption, and a summary will be published within 15 days after adoption in a paper of general circulation published and circulated within the City of West Sacramento.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento this 17 day of January, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST: Approved as to form:
Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney CODIFY x UNCODIFY __________
578
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 6, 2023 ITEM # 15
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY ELEMENT
AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE BRIDGE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
Seamus Laffey, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
[ ] Commission [ X ] Staff
[ ] Other
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X ] Action
OBJECTIVE
This item considers proposed amendments to the Mobility Element of the General Plan and related amendments to the Bridge District Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1. Receive a presentation by staff and take public comment;
2. Waive first reading and read by title and number only, Ordinance 24-2, adopting the proposed Bridge District Specific Plan amendments (Planned Development 41), certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, adopting the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and
3. Inform the audience the public hearing of the General Plan Mobility Element Updates and consideration of second reading and adoption of Ordinance 24-2 is scheduled for January 17, 2024.
BACKGROUND
California state law requires each city and county to adopt a comprehensive long term general plan that expresses the community’s goals for its future growth and development. General plans address all aspects of development and are organized as a collection of “elements” or topic categories with goals, policies, diagrams and implementation programs included in each. There are eight elements mandated by state law (housing, land use, circulation, conservation, open space, environmental justice, noise and safety) and a jurisdiction can also include optional elements. The City of West Sacramento’s General Plan includes optional elements for Urban Structure and Design, Economic Development, Public Facilities and Services, Parks and Recreation, and Healthy Communities. All development projects and city planning documents are required to be consistent with the General Plan. The City’s existing General Plan was last comprehensively updated in 2016 with a horizon year of 2035 and since that time only the Housing Element has been updated due to strict statutory requirements.
City staff endeavor to update elements of the General Plan when necessary while maintaining adherence to the long-term vision.
The Mobility Element contains goals, policies and implementation programs related to the City’s circulation and transportation network and reflects the City’s commitment to a safe, connected, efficient, multi-modal system that facilitates the community’s economic, environmental, and social objectives. The Mobility Element contains policies related to complete streets, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), public transit, bicycling, walking, parking, and goods movement. Transportation and circulation are strongly connected with goals and policies in other elements of the General Plan such as land use, air quality and safety. The goals and policies within the Mobility Element must support the varying land use patterns of the city and help the City to meet its air quality and climate goals through encouraging and supporting travel modes such as walking, bicycling, and mass transit.
The impetus for amending the Mobility Element is to incorporate circulation geometries and roadway classifications within the Pioneer Bluff and Stone Lock Reuse Master Plan areas, the Broadway Bridge project, I Street Bridge replacement project, Washington Realized Sustainable Community Strategy, and existing plans for the Riverfront Districts into the General Plan Circulation Diagram. These bring the General Plan into consistency with plans previously approved by the City Council. Additionally, policies and implementation 579
General Plan Mobility Element and BDSP Amendments
December 6, 2023
programs changes are proposed to better reflect the City’s goals and updates to state law. The Bridge District Specific Plan circulation diagrams are also being updated to be consistent with the General Plan changes.
The City Council previously approved a contract with AECOM Technical Services Inc. to assist in preparing the proposed changes, technical travel demand modeling, and environmental documentation. The contract’s scope of work for the Mobility Element is detailed above and amendments are limited to those identified in the scope of work in the contract approved by the City Council.
ANALYSIS
The amended Mobility Element with tracked changes is provided as Attachment 1 and a summary of the amendments is provided below.
Circulation Diagram and Functional Classification System Amendments to the Circulation Diagram in the General Plan Mobility Element incorporate geometries identified in the Pioneer Bluff and Stone Lock Reuse Master Plan, the Washington Realized Sustainable Community Strategy, and the Bridge District Specific Plan, including changes in road designations (local, collectors, minor arterials, major arterials), adding new roads and intersections. Both the Broadway Bridge and C Street Bridge (I Street Bridge replacement) have been added as well as roads in new development projects. Roads no longer existing, such as portions of South River Road removed due to the Southport Levee Improvement Project, have been deleted. Additionally, the classifications of some existing roads have been changed to better reflect existing and foreseeable conditions. This includes reclassifying West Capitol Avenue, Sacramento Avenue, Linden Road and Lake Washington Boulevard east of Jefferson Boulevard to minor arterial roads rather than major roads as they do not functionally meet the major arterials road classification as defined on Page 7 of the Mobility Element.
The proposed amendments reflect existing conditions that are not likely to change before the General Plan horizon year as well as changes that have already been approved by the City Council in other planning documents but have yet to be incorporated into the General Plan.
While working on the updates to the General Plan staff have also been processing an entitlement application for the Dharma Realm Buddhist Association which proposes a new temple building at 1029 West Capitol Avenue.
That project will likely be ready for Planning Commission consideration sometime next year. The Circulation Diagram in the proposed General Plan Mobility Element includes a road over their property connecting Drever Street to Merkley Avenue and they have raised concerns that this would impact approval of their proposed development since it bisects their proposed development that is oriented a specific way for religious reasons.
This road is the optimal north/south alignment for providing an additional connection in this area of the City as it connects the City’s transit center, library and City Hall facilities, and neighborhood-serving commercial uses with the Bridge District and Pioneer Bluff and provides a safer connection for cyclists and pedestrians compared to Jefferson Boulevard.
However, once Dharma Realm’s representatives raised these concerns staff modified the diagram to no longer show this section of road as the primary alignment but rather an alternative alignment shown as a dashed line. The figure to the right is a close up view of the General Plan Circulation Diagram showing this area of the City.
The primary and most feasible alignment is to connect El Rancho Court to Tower Bridge Gateway. El Rancho Court is the short roadway south of Arthur F. Turner Community Library and Merkley Avenue. The General Plan is a long-range document so should the property ever change ownership the City would be in a better position to obtain the right of way of the dashed line alignment in the future. New roads shown in the General Plan are implemented either through eminent domain or through subdivision right of way dedications. The Dharma Realm development entitlement
application does not include a request for a subdivision of land. One of the required findings the Planning Commission will need to make during their consideration of this project is that it complies with the General Plan and the applicant has expressed concerns that there could be a basis for not making this finding if this road is going through their property. Staff have communicated that since the primary alignment is now via El Rancho Court to Tower Bridge Gateway there may be staff support for making this finding.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
580
General Plan Mobility Element and BDSP Amendments
December 6, 2023
The most common way to measure vehicular travel demand is the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Since on-road transportation emissions are the biggest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the City and the region, a top source of other air pollutants, and the top fossil fuel energy consumer, finding ways to reduce VMT is critical for the community’s environmental and energy conservation goals. Senate Bill (SB) 743 required all local agencies to begin using VMT as a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) metric by July 1, 2020.
VMT replaced Level of Service (LOS), which was for decades a de facto threshold of significance in environmental analyses. LOS is a measure of intersection operations including delays due to high traffic volumes and does not directly address emissions, which are the true impacts on the environment. Mitigation for LOS impacts typically included road widenings, more traffic signals, etc., which consequently led to induced demand and even more use of the personal automobile and traffic congestion. LOS as a metric led to more traffic and all the negative effects of that traffic to the climate, environment, and human health. VMT is the metric now being used in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine a project’s transportation impact since it more accurately evaluates the actual impact to the environment by virtue of being able to calculate GHG and other criteria pollutant emissions.
The draft Mobility Element includes additional policy language regarding VMT and a new Implementation Program 14 that requires the City to develop and implement a VMT reduction program that includes VMT reduction strategies. The VMT reduction program will require proposed land development projects to incorporate, as feasible, reasonable, and applicable VMT reduction measures listed in in the implementation program to reduce travel demand and associated adverse physical environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions and transportation-related noise. Since under SB 743 project VMT must be at least 15% below regional average to not be considered a significant impact, this program will be very important as VMT is very high in some parts of the City with no short-term solution available.
Bridge District Specific Plan
Proposed amendments to the Bridge District Specific Plan (implemented via Planned Development Overlay 41) focus on transportation facilities to incorporate the updated road network shown in the General Plan Circulation Diagram. They are companion to the General Plan updates in that by law a specific plan is a refinement of a General Plan. The main changes are including the Drever Street extension connecting to Tower Bridge Gateway, removing Rail Street and the associated spur connecting it to Drever Street and including Delta Lane. The amended Volume 2 and 3 of the Bridge District Specific Plan (BDSP) that include updated street cross sections and maps are provided as Attachment 2 and 3.
A new street cross section has been included in Volume 2 of the specific plan for Drever Street. This cross section only applies to the portions of Drever Street within the BDSP area which is in-between Tower Bridge Gateway and US50/Business 80. Since this street is identified as an Order 6 Local Road in the specific plan it is proposed that the Drever Street cross section align with the existing standards as closely as possible. However, the existing standards do not include a bike lane, so it is proposed that a painted 6’ bike lane be included on both sides of Drever. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) publishes the Urban Bikeway Design Guide and the most desirable bike lane width per that document is 6’. Anything wider resembles a vehicular travel lane and would likely see unlawful use by vehicles. On-street parking along Drever is proposed along the short stretch south of the Ballpark Drive intersection to support economic development and meet the demands of customers, residents, and visitors and be consistent with Volume 1, Goal 9 of the specific plan and Volume 3, Appendix B4. For the portion of Drever Street north of the Ballpark Drive intersection, a buffered bike lane designed to NACTO standards on either side is proposed along with a shared travel lane for future light rail.
No on-street parking is proposed along the stretch in between Tower Bridge Gateway and Ballpark Drive.
The Bridge District Street design and development standards are organized around the district’s street hierarchy which descend in order of prominence. Higher order streets, such as Riverfront Street are meant to be the most prominent and have the most pedestrian activation while the lowest order are local side streets and alley’s which accommodate the back of house functions such as parking garage entrances and refuse collection. Both Drever Street and Delta Lane are proposed to be an Order 6 Local Street which is a less prominent street smaller in scale than other streets in the district and envisioned as serving primarily residential uses with two lanes for vehicular traffic and on street parking.
Environmental Considerations
Updates to the Mobility Element and BDSP are subject to CEQA. The City has completed a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the proposed amendments pursuant to §15163 of the CEQA Guidelines (see Attachment 4, Draft SEIR and Attachment 5 Final SEIR). The Notice of Availability of the draft SEIR was sent 581
General Plan Mobility Element and BDSP Amendments
December 6, 2023
out on August 11th and the public comment period ran for 45 days. One comment was received and is addressed in the Final SEIR. The Supplemental EIR (SEIR) supplements the previously certified 2016 General Plan EIR and the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR and provides the information necessary to make the previous EIRs adequate for this proposed project. The analysis in this SEIR shows the updates to the General Plan and the Bridge District Specific Plan will have no new significant impacts and no increase in severity in impacts from the 2016 General Plan EIR. Certification of the of the Supplemental EIR would be considered with the public hearing on the proposed amendments to the General Plan Mobility Element and second reading of ordinance 24-2 scheduled for January 17, 2024
When a final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead Agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the project. The draft Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for City Council’s future consideration are provided as Attachment 6. Additionally, CEQA requires that a document identifying significant environmental effects also include adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the project SEIR. This MMRP is provided as Attachment 7.
As part of the CEQA process, the City is required to consult with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes to assess impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) that could be affected by proposed projects, and seek recommendations in the consultation process for mitigation that would avoid, preserve in place, or reduce potential impacts to such resources. The matters discussed during these tribal consultation meetings are to remain confidential per state statute for the purposes of preventing looting, vandalism, or damage to a TCR. However, a general description of the information may be provided. For this project the City received tribal consultation requests from the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Wilton Rancheria and Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wok Indians. City staff conducted tribal consultation meetings with all three tribes and as a result of the consultation a new mitigation measure, TCR-1 has been added to the SEIR. This mitigation measure has been added to clarify the government-to-government tribal consultation process and reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, consistent with current state statutory and regulatory requirements.
Commission Recommendation
Policy considerations are brought before City commissions having responsibility for the policy topic prior to City Council consideration. The draft amendments were brought before the Planning Commission in a workshop format on June 15th and the Transportation, Mobility, and Infrastructure Commission on June 5th. Based on the input provided at those two meetings policy language was added regarding the City’s cycling infrastructure and an expanded bike lane was provided along Drever Street in the Bridge District Specific Plan cross section. On November 2, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted resolution 23-4PC recommending the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the City’s General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan, certify the Supplemental EIR and adopt the Findings of Fact, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (see Attachment 8, Resolution 23-4PC).
Strategic Plan Integration
The Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan updates support Strategic Plan Principle: Mobility & Connectivity, providing convenient and sustainable choices for people to get where they're going.
Alternatives
It is recommended the City Council approve the first reading of Ordinance 24-2.
The City Council’s primary alternative to staff’s recommended action is summarized below.
1. Continue the item and specify the additional information to be provided or revised.
Staff does not recommend this alternative as this policy work must be completed in order to begin additional policy work on climate resilience and environmental justice.
Coordination and Review
Updates to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan have been reviewed by the Community Development and Economic Development and Housing Departments. 582
General Plan Mobility Element and BDSP Amendments
December 6, 2023
Budget/Cost Impact
There are no current financial impacts with the proposed changes, however, the changes could impact future impact fee calculations as fees are updated over the next several years.
ATTACHMENT(S)
1. General Plan Mobility Element (Tracked Changes)
2. Amended Bridge District Specific Plan Volume 2
3. Amended Bridge District Specific Plan Volume 3
4. Draft SEIR
5. Final SEIR
6. Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
7. MMRP
8. Resolution 23-4PC
9. Ordinance 24-2
583
P a g e | 1
P O L I C Y D O C U M E N T PA R T 2
MO B I L I T Y EL E M E N T
West Sacramento’s transportation network reflects the city’s City’s commitment to developing a connected, efficient, multi-modal system that facilitates the community’s economic, environmental, and social objectives.
The Mobility Element contains policies that will support increased densities and a mix of uses in multi-modal districts, help walking become more practical for short trips, support bicycling for both short- and long-distance trips, and improve transit frequency and destination options. These changes in the land use and transportation framework will to serve highly-frequented destinationsreduce vehicle dependency and household transportation costs, conserve energy resources, reduce greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, and air pollution, and decrease do so while continuing to accommodate auto mobilityvehicle miles travelled (VMT). Creating complete streets is a particular focus of the Mobility Element. The element Element also includes policies related to parking, goods movement, and the Port of West Sacramento. Additional policies that address connectivity and the provision of pedestrian ways, bicycle routes, transit, and road facilities can be found in the Land Use Element and the Urban Structure and Design Element.
584
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 2
Multi-Modal System
Multi-modal transportation systems seek to
accommodate various modes and enhance
connections among modes so each can fill its optimal
role in the overall transportation system. The policies in this section seek to create a transportation system
in West Sacramento and the region that is paired with
supportive development patterns to accommodates
walking, bicycling, automobiletransit use, and
vehicular travel, public transit, while encouraging infill development and benefitting community and
environmental health.
One important part of the transportation planning
process is estimating travel demand. This is important
for planning new transportation facilities and
modifications to existing facilities, but also as a
baseline for examining ways to reduce vehicular travel
demand by making it safer and more practical for more
people to reach destinations on foot, by bicycle, or via transit. The most common way to measure vehicular
travel demand is according to the number of vehicle
miles traveled (VMT). Since transportation is the
biggest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions,
a top source of other air pollutants, and the top energy user, finding ways to reduce VMT is critical for a
community’s environmental and energy conservation
goals. While VMT in itself is not an environmental
impact, . However, increases in VMT could result in
associated adverse physical environmental impacts,
such as those related to greenhouse gas GHG
emissions, criteria air pollutants, (GHG) and
transportation-related noise. And since transportation
is the second highest household expense, increasing
non-personal vehicle transportation options in the city will help free up income to be spent on healthcare,
housing, other needs.1
General Plan policies that prioritize Implementation of the City’s CAP and applicable Housing Element
policies targeting redevelopment in low-VMT areas
reduces VMT by reducing directly associated adverse
physical environmental impacts such as through
1 US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.bls.gov/cex/tables/geographic/mean/cu-region-2-year-average-2021.pdf encouraging compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented infill development helps to reduce VMT by placing more
people in areas where getting around without a car is
more practical. to maximize walkability and promote
the use of public and active transport options.
Facilitating infill development in walkable communities with high-quality public transit reduces the need for
passenger vehicles.
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments
(SACOG) identifies several areas within West
Sacramento that are VMT efficient. This includes
Transit Priority Areas (areas within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned) near the Sacramento River, I-80, and US-50, and Harbor
Boulevard2. SACOG identifies areas generally north of
the Deep Water Ship Channel and east of I-80 having
between 50 and 85 percent of regional average
residential VMT per capita. Targeting development in
these areas, matched with supportive pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit facilities reduces VMT and
associated adverse impacts.
VMT in itself is not an environmental impact. However,
increases in VMT could result in associated adverse
physical environmental impacts, such as greenhouse
gas emissions (GHG) and transportation-related
noise. Implementation of the City’s CAP and
applicable Housing Element policies targeting
redevelopment in low-VMT areas reduces VMT by
reducing directly associated adverse physical
environmental impacts such as through encouraging
compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented development to
maximize walkability and promote the use of public
and active transport options. Facilitating infill
development in walkable communities with highquality public transit reduces the need for passenger vehicles.
GOAL M-1
To develop and maintain a multi-modal integrated
transportation system that provides for the safe
2 585
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 3
and efficient movement of people and goods,
supports vibrant neighborhoods and business
districts, and reduces air pollution and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from vehicle
miles traveled (VMT).
M-1.1 Connectivity and Access
The City shall strive to develop maintain a
comprehensive, safe, and fully integrated multimodal
transportation system that connects residents, visitors, and employees to the city and region through all
available modes including connected vehicles,
car/bikeshare, and autonomous modes. The
multimodal transportation system shall support new
infill development through facilitatingby ensuring
convenient and safe walking, bicycling, and transit
useaccess. (MPSP)
M-1.2 Multi-Modal Corridors and Hubs
Consistent with the City’s Mobility Action Plan, tThe
City shall maintain establish multi-modal corridors and hubs within and between urban centers and along
major corridors to support a variety of travel modes
while providing amenities, such as bicycle parking and
wayfinding features. (RDR/MPSP)
M-1.3 Reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled
The City shall endeavor to reduce vehicle miles
travelled (VMT) and dependence on fossil fuels by
continuing to develop a comprehensive multi-modal
transportation system that includes more transit,
bicycle, and pedestrian routes, and compact, mixeduse development, including that includes more transit, bicycle, and pedestrian routes, as well as facilitates
infill development of uses, such as common goods
and services, that reduce commute distances and
shorten tripsthat supports non-private vehicle trips.
(RDR/MPSP)
M- 1.X4 Priorityize Infill Development
The City shall focus and expedite bicycle-, pedestrian- , and transit-supportive infill development in SB 743
Transit Priority Areas and other low-VMT areas.
M-1.45 Public Involvement
The City shall continue to involvework closely with the public, especially disadvantaged communities and
those traditionally underserved by transportation
services and disadvantaged communities, and seek
public inputcollaborate on transportation issues,
needs, projects, and processes from the early stage of
the planning process. (PI)
M-1.56 Transportation Planning Efforts
The City shall continue to participate in State, regional, and local transportation planning efforts to insure
ensure coordination of the expansion and
improvement of the region’s transportation system.
(IGC)
M-1.67 Regional Communication
The City shall continue to develop formal and informal
lines of communication between adjacent jurisdictions
to ensure cooperation in the development of
transportation systems that cross jurisdictional
boundaries. (IGC)
M-1.78 Multi- Mmodal Access
As part of the site design during design review for new developments, the City shall incorporate multi-modal
access to residential areas, civic and commercial
centers, employment centers, transit stops/stations,
schools, parks, recreation areas, and tourist
attractions. (RDR)
M-1.89 Overcoming Barriers to Accessibility
To improve safe and accessible multimodal
connections Tthe City shall strive to remove and
minimize the effects of natural and manmade barriers,
such as the Capital City Freeway, railways,
Sacramento River, highway/interstate interchanges
and associated pproach ramps, and the Deep Water
Ship Channel., on accessibility between and within
existing neighborhoods and districts. (RDR/MPSP)
M-1.910 Eliminate Gaps
The City shall strive to eliminate roadway, public
transit, bikeway, and pedestrian way gaps between
586
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 4
neighborhoods and districts to create a completely
connected city. (RDR/MPSP)
M-1.1011Multi-Modal Transportation Center
The City shall maintain a multi-modal transportation
center as a hub for all local and regional transportation systems. (PSR)
M-1.1112 Transportation Impact Studies
The City shall maintain guidelines for Transportation
Impact Studies for new developments that identify,
evaluate, and address transportation impacts on all
modes of travelof new development. (RDR/PSR)
M-1.1213 Off-site Improvements
The City shall require new developments to finance
and construct contribute to all off-site circulation
improvements necessary to mitigate accommodate a
the project’s multi-modal transportation demands, and
level of service, and impacts. (RDR/FB)
M-1.13 14 Fair Share Circulation Improvements
The City shall ensure, through a combination of traffic impact fees and other funding mechanisms, that new
development pays its fair share of the costs of
circulation improvements for all transportation modes
according to projects’ VMT impacts. (RDR/FB)
Complete Streets
Complete streets are designed and operated to enable
safe access and efficient movement, and create a
favorable experience. Complete streets accommodate
pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, as well as
vehicular access and create a safer transportation
system for all modes of transit. To ensure a varied and viable range of transportation options, people must
feel comfortable and secure on the street, no matter
the mode of travel. For decades, however, streets
were designed to move cars quickly and efficiently,
prioritizing driving speed and convenience without
regard to the impact on the safety and convenience of
other modes of transportation.
Complete streets also provide a high degrees of
“connectivity” – a term which describes the degree to
which there are multiple routes available to reach
serve the same origins and destinations. A highly
connected street pattern offers dense system of
parallel routes, both east-west and north-south, with
many streets providing through connections; no culde-sacs, dead-ends, or looped streets; frequent intersections; and, frequent points of access. Highly
connected streets are convenient for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and drivers and can reduce travel times for emergency responders.
The policies in this section provide guidance on how
West Sacramento’s streets can be designed to meet
the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and
public transportation users of all ages and physical
abilities, as well as older people, children, and persons with disabilities. At the same time, there is no one
design for complete streets. Different neighborhoods
and districts in the city will have unique elements and features that, when combined, should enable all users
to move safely along and across the complete street.
Additionally, the City will need to monitor the
emergence of New technologies, such as autonomous
vehicles, will emergeand manage the transportation
network accordingly.
GOAL M-2
To provide complete streets that accommodate
driving, walking, bicycling, and public transit and
are designed to enable safe, attractive, and
comfortable access and travel for all users.
M-2.1 Complete Streets Standards
The City shall develop, maintain, and implement
complete streets standards that are applicable toserve
adjacent land uses and are context sensitive to nearby
neighborhoods and districts. (MPSP)
M-2.2 Connectivity and Balance
The City shall preserve and continue to develop a
comprehensive, integrated, and connected network of
streets that balance walking and bicycling with public
transit, automobilesvehicles, and trucks. (MPSP)
M-2.3 Adequate Rights-of-Way
The City shall ensure that all new roadway projects
and major reconstruction projects provide appropriate
587
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 5
and adequate rights-of-way for all users, including
bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and motorists, except where pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited
by law from using a given facility. Dedication and
improvements of full rights-of-way shall not be
required in existing developed areas where the City
determines that such improvements are either
infeasible or undesirable. Other deviations from these
standards shall be permitted upon a determination that
safe and adequate access and circulation are
preserved by such deviations. (RDR)
M-2.4 Accessibility
The City shall endeavor to ensure that all streets are
safe and accessible to people with disabilities and
others with limited mobility. Streets shall be designed and reconstructed to meet the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (RDR)
M-2.5 Street Amenities
The City shall require public transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian amenities in street design to promote the
walking, bicycling, and public transit use and
complement the context of nearby centers, corridors,
and neighborhoods. (RDR) The City shall ensure, to
the extent feasible. (RDR)
M-2.6 Street Greening
The City shall require consistent landscaping,
including street trees, and landscaped medians, and
sidewalks, in street design that to minimizes runoff,
provide shade, and creates an inviting environment.
(RDR)
M-2.7 Complete Streets Requirements
The City, to the extent feasible, shall require that all new street construction and reconstruction be is
designed to achieve complete streets. Exceptions to
complete streets design shall require approval of the
Planning Commission. (RDR)
M-2.8 More Complete Streets
The City, in consideration of emergency vehicle and
refuse collection needs, shall identify streets that can be more “complete,” or that have excess vehicular
capacity, and could accommodate such as a reduction
in the number or width of travel lanes, with
consideration for emergency vehicle and refuse
collection operations, and protected bicycle lanes.
This could include , including placement of on-street
parking adjacent to the vehicular travelway and the
bicycle lane adjacent to the curb and sidewalk. (PSR)
M-2.9 Street Design Standards
The City shall require that streets be dedicated,
widened, extended, and constructed to provide for a
well-connected, walkable community, (preferably
using a grid or modified grid design), according to City street design standards and complete streets
concepts. New residential, retail and service, and
mixed-use property subdivisions will generally be
required developments should to provide relatively
short blocks and multiple internal connections
between residences and destinations, as well as
multiple connections to existing and planned
development in adjacent areas. (RDR)
M-2.10 Existing Streets Retrofits
Based on available funding and staff resources, the
City shall retrofit existing streets with new bikeways, enhanced sidewalks, on-street parking, and street
trees and exclusive transit lanes. (MPSP)
M-2.11 Complete Bridges
The City shall ensure, to the extent feasible, that
bridges and overpasses include infrastructure,
features, and amenities to provide a continuous
unbroken system of complete streets within the city
and to provide a welcoming entrance at the city’s
gateways. (RDR)
M-2.12 Adequate Travel and Crossing of Rights
of Ways
The City shall ensure that, in constructing and
reconstructing streets, that adequate rights- of-way
and crossing of rights-of-way be is provided for all
users including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and motorists. (RDR)
M-2.13 Vision Zero Reduce Conflicts
The City shall utilize a data driven, “vision zero”
approach to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe 588
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 6
injuries by 2040 and endeavor to ensure that bicycle,
pedestrian, and public transit facilities are constructed to eliminate minimize fatalities and severe conflicts
among bicyclists, pedestrians, transit operators/users, and motorists. (RDR)
M-2.14 Minimal Driveways and Curb Cuts
The City shall strive to minimize the number of
driveways and curb cuts along streets Arterials to limit unsafe conditions and enhance the experience of
walking and bicycling. The City shall strive to
consolidate existing driveways for adjacent users
where possible and remove unused driveways. (RDR)
Streets and Roadways
Building on the concepts of a multi-modal
transportation system and complete streets, policies in this section provide for streets that are designed to
balance the diverse needs of pedestrians, bicyclists,
transit riders, and motorists. Streets are categorized
according to both function and typology, considering
the surrounding land use context. Street
improvements are designed to minimize
environmental and neighborhood impacts.
GOAL M-3
To develop and maintain a street and highway
system that promotes safe, efficient, and reliable
movement of people and goods by multiple
transportation modes and routes, reduces air
quality impacts and GHG emissions, and
minimizes traffic noise impacts.
M-3.1 Safe and Efficient
The City shall ensure that the roadway street system,
street designs, and access provide for redundant (i.e., multiple routes to reach destinations), and the safe,
and efficient movement of goods and people. (MPSP)
M-3.2 Automobile Vehicular Level of Service
“For planning purposes, Tthe City shall endeavor to
maintain a vehicular Level of Service “C” on all streets within the City, except at intersections and on roadway segments within one-quarter mile of a freeway
interchange or bridge crossing of the Deep Water Ship
Channel, barge canal, or Sacramento River, where a
Level of Service “D” shall be deemed acceptable, and
within pedestrian oriented, high- density, mixed- use
areas, such as the Pioneer Bluff and Stone Lock
Reuse Master Plan area, Bridge District Specific Plan
area, the Washington District Specific Plan area, and
Sacramento Avenue and West Capitol Avenue
corridors east of Harbor Boulevardand West Capitol
Avenue from Harbor BlvdBoulevard. east, where a
vehicular Level of Service “E” shall be deemed
acceptable. For purposes of CEQA impact analyses,
Level of Service shall be considered as part of General Plan consistency. For purposes of CEQA impact
analyses, SB 743 does not preclude the City from
maintaining LOS policies in its General Plan.
However, SB 743 does preclude the City from utilizing
LOS as a measure of transportation impacts under
CEQA. (RDR)
M-3.3 Level of Service Flexibility
The City shall, on a case-by-case basis, allow for lower automobile vehicle level of service if other
transportation goals (i.e., creation of complete streets) will be met; other modes (i.e., walking, bicycling, and public transit) are would be negatively impacted by
improvements that would be required to maintain auto
the vehicular LOS; and or the land use context and
character warrants deviations. Exceptions to the
vehicular level of service standards operating goals
shall require the approval of the City Council. (RDR)
M-3.4 Multi-modal Roadway Level of Service
The City shall develop, maintain, and implement multimodal level of service (LOS) roadway standards operating goals to measure more appropriately
balance trade-offs among modes and/or create a more
balanced transportation system. The City shall
endeavor to achieve levels of service for bikeways,
pedestrian ways, and public transit that are at least as efficient as the automobile vehicular LOS.
(RDR/MPSP)
M-3.5 High Volume Uses
The City shall direct land uses that generate high
traffic volumes to areas near multi-modal
transportation corridors and public transit facilities to 589
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 7
minimize vehicle use, congestion, and delay.
(RDR/MPSP)
M-3.6 Major Intersection Delays
The City shall design major intersections to minimize
long vehicle delays and reduce emissions “hot spots”,
with consideration to the impacts to bicycle and
pedestrian movement. (RDR/MPSP)
M-3.765 Roundabouts
The City shall consider roundabouts as an intersection
traffic control option with demonstratedwith
demonstrated air quality and safety benefits, where
deemed feasible and appropriate. (RDR/MPSP)
M-3.x76 8 Connected Grid
The City shall preserve and continue to promote gridbased roadway systems, where appropriate, that distribute traffic evenly and avoids excessive traffic in any given area. (RDR/MPSP)
M-3.x87 9 Local Neighborhood Streets
The City shall require local streets that primarily serve residential neighborhoods to be designed to include
visual cues that have been demonstrated to
discourage encourage low -speeds (maximum 25
mph)of no greater than 25 miles per hour, but ideally
no greater than 15 miles per hour vehicular throughtraffic and to reduce and prevent unsafe traffic speeds. (RDR)
M-3.x98 10 Traffic Calming
The City shall support the installation of traffic calming features on streets with high pedestrian traffic and
along neighborhood streets. (RDR/MPSP)
M-3.x109 11 Maintenance
The City shall strive to maintain streets in a condition which is safe for travel, consistent with current design standards. (RDR/MPSP)
M-3.x1110 12Neighborhood Electric Vehicles &
Autonomous Vehicles
The City shall encourage developments and street
systems that support the safe use of Neighborhood
Electric Vehicles (NEV) and autonomous vehicles.
(RDR/MPSP)
M-3.x12110 13Emergency Service Coordination
The City shall coordinate development and
maintenance of all transportation facilities with
emergency service providers to ensure continued
emergency service operation and service levels.
(RDR/MPSP)
M-3.x1321 14Adequate Southport Area Access
The City shall ensure that adequate access to the
Southport area is provided at all times as new major
development occurs in the Southport area, including
through the construction of such as the Enterprise
Boulevard CrossingBoulevard CrossingBridge.
(RDR/MPSP)
M-3.x143215 Bridge Carrying Capacity
The City shall work with Caltrans and the City of
Sacramento to improve maintain the pedestrian
capacity and increase the, bicycle, and transit,
capacity of the Tower Bridge and the C Street Bridge/I
-Street Bridge replacement, and in the development of
future bridges. (MPSP/IGC)
M-3.x1543 16 Freeport Bridge Improvements
The City shall support improvements to the Freeport
Bridge to provide improved access to the southern
part of West Sacramento.
Circulation Diagram &
Standards
The Circulation Diagram (Figure M-1) depicts the
official classification Functional Classification of
existing and proposed streets and roads within West
Sacramento. All new streets and roadways and
roadway widenings are assumed toshould be
constructed to a width adequate to serve the projected
traffic volumes at safe speeds and support multimodal travel. The following paragraphs define the various types of roadways in the classification system:
Local Roadways Streets are intended to serve
adjacent properties only. They carry very little, if
590
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 8
any, through-traffic, and generally carry very low
traffic volumes. While normally discontinuous in
alignment, many of West Sacramento's local
roadways are laid out in a grid system, making
through travel possible, but not desirable. S, are
designed to reduce vehicular speeds, and have
speed limits on local roadways normally dothat do
not exceed 25 miles per hour. Transit bus service
is not typically provided on Local
RoadwaysStreets. With the low traffic volumes and
low speeds, bicycles are accommodated, typically
without the need for special lane markings or
signage. Sidewalks are and on-street parking are
provided on both sides of the street. Parking is
generally provided on both sides of the street.?
Local roadways are not depicted on the Circulation
Diagram. Local Streets can be designated as
active transportation through-routes.
Collectors Roadways are intended to "collect"
traffic from local roadways streets and carry
itdistribute to roadways higher in the street
classification hierarchy (e.g., arterials). Collectors
roadways also serve adjacent properties. They
generally carry light to moderate traffic volumes on
two lanes, and vehicular speed limits are typically
maintained in the 25 to 35 miles per hour range.
Bicycles should be accommodated by a bike lane
a minimum of five feet in width (six feet in width if
adjacent to on-street parking.), preferably with a
physical buffer, separating from adjacent vehicle
traffic. For pedestrian connectivity, sidewalks
should be provided on both sides of the street. Onstreet parking can be provided on collector roadwaysCollectors. Few roads in West
Sacramento can definitively be classified as
collector roadways, since many local streets, in
their grid layout, feed directly to arterial roads.
Roadways designated as collectors on the
Circulation Diagram include, among others, F
Street, Michigan Blvd., Bryte Avenue, Park Blvd.,
Stonegate Drive, Golden Gate Drive, Oakland Bay
Drive, and Higgins Road.
Minor Arterials Roadways are fed by local Local
Streets and collector roadsCollectors, provide intra
city circulation and connection to regional
roadways, and often carry heavy traffic volumes.
Although their primary purpose is to move heavy
volumes of traffic, Minor Arterials Roadways often
serve adjacent properties, especially in commercial
areas. Speed limits on Minor Arterials typically
Roadways often range from 35 to 45 miles per
hour. Bicycles should be accommodated by bike
lanes a minimum of six feet in width, ideally
preferably with a physical buffer, physical or
stripped, separating from adjacent vehicle traffic.
For pedestrian connectivity, sidewalks should be
provided on both sides of the street. Transit stops
should allow for bus pullouts as to not impede the
movement of vehicle traffic. On- street parking
should not be allowed. In locations with relatively
high pedestrian and bicycle use, Minor Arterial
design will promote relatively lower
speeds.Roadways designated as minor arterials
on the Circulation Diagram include, among others,
Kegle Drive, the western end of West Capitol
Avenue, and the southern end of Jefferson Blvd.
Major Arterials Roadways are fed by local,
collector, and minor arterial roadways, provide for
major cross-town and regional travel, and carry
larger volumes of traffic. They are divided
roadways of four or six lanes with a large median
area which is used for auxiliary lane purposes at
intersections. There should be no direct access to
adjacent properties unless no reasonable
alternatives exist. Such direct access should be
limited to right turn-in and right turn-out movements
only. Speed limits on Major Arterials roadways are
typically at least 40 miles per hour. Bicycles should
be accommodated by bike lanes a minimum ofat
least 6 feet in width, ideally with a physical buffer,
physical or stripped, separating from adjacent
vehicle traffic (if not allowed by roadway
constraints, a striped buffer is sufficient). For
pedestrian connectivity, sidewalks should be
provided on both sides of the street. Transit stops
should allow for bus pullouts as to not impede the
movement of vehicle traffic. On- street parking
should not be allowed. In locations with relatively
high pedestrian and bicycle use, Major Arterial
591
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 9
design will promote relatively lower
speeds.Roadways classified as major arterials on
the Circulation Diagram include, among others,
Jefferson Blvd., Harbor Blvd., Sacramento Avenue,
and West Capitol Avenue.
Freeways/Interstates serve intracity and intercity
travel. They provide no direct access to adjacent
properties, but rather are fed traffic from
cCollectors or arterial roadwaysArterials through
the use of access ramps and, therefore, do not
have at-grade intersections. Freeways provide
connections to other regional highways and are
capable of carrying heavy traffic volumes. Speed
limits on freeways are usually the highest allowed
by law. Bicycles and pedestrians are not allowed
on freeways. Capitol City Freeway (U.S.
50/Business 80) and I-80 serve this function in
West Sacramento.
592
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 10
593
§¨¦80
Jefferson Blvd
Tower Bridge Gateway
C St Bridge
80 Sacramento River
American River
Deep-water Ship Channel
Drever St
Jackson St
Soule St
Tower Bridge
Enterprise Bridge
5th St
Westacre Rd
Linden Rd
River front St
Jefferson Blvd
Grand St
Stone Blvd
C St
6th St
Evergreen Ave
Locks Dr
Harbor Blvd
West Capitol Ave
Lake Washington Blvd
Sycamore Ave
Reed Ave
3rd St
15th St
Bryte Ave
Cummins Way
Michigan Blvd
Higgins Rd
Stonegate Dr
GoldenGate
Dr
Oakland Bay Dr
Douglas St
Del Monte St
Lighthouse Dr
South River Rd
Kegle Dr
AnnaSt
Gregory Ave
Todhunter Ave
Mill St
North Harbor Blvd Poplar Ave
Bevan Rd
Enterprise Blvd
Park Blvd
Marshall Rd
Carrie St
Burrows Ave
Riverbank Rd
Bridge St
F St
Sacramento Ave
7th St
Otis Ave
Industrial Blvd
Market St
Ramco St
Promenade St
Terminal St
CaseySt
Davis Rd
Village Pkwy
Southport Pkwy
Carlin Dr
Antioch Ave
Ballpark Dr
Walnut St
Merkley Ave
Marina Greens Dr
Broadway Bridge
Cebrian St
Rail St
City of West Sacramento
CIRCULATION DIAGRAM
AECOM, 2023; ESRI Imagery (Maxar), 2022; West Sacramento 2023 0 1 Miles
AECOM Oakland CA 11/14/2023 USER mike.snyder PATH \\na.aecomnet.com\LFS\AMER\Sacramento-USSCR2\DCS\GIS\GIS\Projects\60633167_WestSacGenPlan\02_Maps\01_Analysis_and_Data_Development\20231114_GeneralPlan2040Update.mxd City Limits
Functional Classification
Freeway/Interstate
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
Collector
Collector (Alternative Alignment)*
Local Street
Note: *The connection Drever Street north to Merkley Avenue is an alternative alignment – the primary connection in this area would be El Rancho Court to Tower Bridge Gateway. 594 General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 12
Public Transit
Policies in this section strive to foster increased
transit use through the provision of new service lines
and the extension of existing lines, increased
frequency of service, and the provision of direct
pedestrian and bicycle access to transit station area.
This section also focuses on increasing access to
new regional transit services such as high speed rail,
regional rail, streetcars, light rail, new bus routes
between urban centers, micro-transit, and
neighborhood bus service.
GOAL M-4
To support and maintain a range of public and
private transit systems that are responsive to the
needs of all residents and employees and allow
efficient and safe travel throughout the city and
region.
M-4.1 Access to Public Transit
The City shall strive to ensure that all residents have access to adequate and safe public transit options
that offer alternative travel choices to private vehicle use, reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and
increase physical activity. (MPSP)
M-4.2 Affordable Public Transit
The City shall work with the Yolo County Transit
District (Yolobus) to provide adequate and
affordable public transit choices, including expanded
bus, microtransit, and paratransit routes and service.
(MPSP/IGC)
M-4.3 Transit Priority
The City shall consider the use of transit- preferential measures, such as signal priority, bypass lanes, and
queue jumps, to improve transit service reliability.
(MPSP/SO)
M-4.4 Transit Stops
The City shall work with Yolobus to maintain transit
system operations that provides accessible and
convenient service to West Sacramento residents
and employees, particularly during peak commute
timestransit stops along transit corridors at a
minimum of ½-mile intervals and 15-minute
headways during peak periods. (MPSP/IGC)
M-4.5 Transit-friendly Streets
The City shall ensure that new streets install
infrastructure, features, and amenities that support
transit use; are safe, convenient, clean, and efficient; are clearly marked and accessible; and include
shelters, benches, and adequate lighting.
(RDR/MPSP)
M-4.6 Unified Traveler Information System
The City shall work with transit providers in
developing and maintaining a unified traveler
information system that provides current information
on transit service including on- demand dynamic
routing, as well as other modal applications.
(MPSP/IGC)
M-4.7 Yolobus
The City shall work with Yolobus to ensure that
intercity and inter-regional bus service is responsive
to local needs. (IGC)
M-4.8 Feeder-Bus Connections
The City shall work with Sacramentowith
Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT),
Yolobus, and the City of Sacramento to establish a
feeder- bus system to connect West Sacramento
residents with the Sacramento multi-modal station
and SacRT light rail system. (IGC)
M-4.9 Light Rail/Street Cars
The City shall cooperate with Sacramento Regional
Transit District (RT),SacRT, Yolobus, Yolo
TMACommute, and the City of Sacramento to
support and actively pursue extension of light
rail/street cars into West Sacramento to serve the
Civic Center/Central Business District, the
Washington neighborhood, and the Bridge District,
Pioneer Bluff, and Stone Lock. Considerations for
future extensions should be given to areas where
higher-density, mixed-use development patterns will
support light rail and/or streetcar ridership, such as
595
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 13
such as into Southport Town CenterPioneer Bluff.
(MPSP/IGC)
M-4.10 Private Transit
The City shall encourage privately-owned transit
systems, such as taxicabs, employer shuttles,
ridesharing services, microtransit, and private bus
companies, to provide convenient transfers to and
from public transit systems. (JP)
M-4.11 Clean Private Transit
The City shall encourage privately-owned transit
systems to use gas-electric hybrid, zero emissionelectric, or other alternative fuel vehicles. (JP) M-4.12 Private Water Transportation Services
The City shall support development of private water
transportation services and docks, where
appropriate, along the Sacramento River. (RDR)
M-4.13 Paratransit
The City shall support provision of paratransit
services and other demand response services for
those unable to use conventional transit. (JP)
M-4.14 Park- and- Ride
The City shall cooperate with Caltrans and Yolobus
in the development of park-and-ride facilities near
major transportation corridors. (MPSP/IGC)
M-4.15 Promote Transit
The City shall encourage public transit providers and
private event sponsors to promote the ways that
mass transit and excursions can serve West
Sacramento locations and events. (MPSP/IGC)
M-4.16 High Speed Rail
The City shall support the establishment of highspeed rail service connecting the Bay Area and southern California with the Sacramento area.
(MPSP)
Bicycle System
Policies in this section support the construction of a
comprehensive citywide bikeway network that
includes support facilities, such as convenient and
secure bicycle parking. This section seeks to
increase trips taken by bicycling and to ensure the
safety of bicyclists and convenience of reaching
daily destinations via bicycle.
GOAL 5
To develop and maintain a safe, comprehensive,
and integrated bicycle system and bicycle
support facilities throughout the city.
M-5.1 Bike, and Pedestrian, and Trails Plan
The City shall maintain and implement a Bike and
Pedestrian PlanBicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails
Master Plan that identifies priority improvements.
requires nNew development shall be required to be
consistent with the applicable portions of the Plan as
well as the goals and policies of the General Plan.
(MPSP)
M-5. 23 Bicycle Routes
The City shall develop, adopt and
implementmaintain and improve a safe and
convenient network of identified bicycle routes
connecting residential areas with recreation, parks,
scenic areas, the riverfront, schools, the Central
Business District, public facilities, shopping, and
employment areas within the city. (MPSP)
M-5.43 Regional Bicycle System & Bike
Sharing Coordination
The City shall cooperate with surrounding
jurisdictions and SACOG in designing and
implementing a regionally -connected bikeway
system, including bike sharing. (MPSP/IGC)
M-5.54 Connections between New
Development and Bikeways
The City shall ensure that new commercial and
residential development projects provide frequent
and direct connections to the nearest
bikewaysexisting and planned bicycle facilities.
(RDR)
596
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 14
M-5.65 Appropriate Bikeways
The City shall ensure thatmaintain, to the maximum
extent possible, an appropriate system of low-stress
bikeways that encourages cyclists of all skill levels
that includes Class I, II, and III, and IV facilities is maintained in appropriate areas of the city, and
should plan for and install the most protected facility feasible in areas where relatively high bicycle activity is anticipated. (RDR/MPSP)
M-5.76 Coexistence
The City shall limit designated and marked on-street
bicycle routes to those streets where the available
traffic volumes and speeds permit safe coexistence
of bicycle and motor vehicle traffic and should use
high-visibility markings to promote motorist
awareness of cyclists. The City shall and implement
design changes to reduce vehicle speeds in areas
where bicycle access is important for reaching daily
destinations. (RDR/MPSP)
M-5.87 Bicycle Safety
The City shall require consider that bicycle safety be
considered when implementing improvements
for automobile vehicle traffic operations, including
setting speed limits and implementing complete
street improvement projects. (RDR/MPSP)
M-5.98 Public Bicycle Parking Facilities
The City shall ensure that bicycle parking facilities
are installed at all new major public facilities,
business and employment sites, and shopping
centers. (RDR/SO)
M-5.109 Bike Support Facilities
The City shall require that new large development
and redevelopment projects (e.g., employment
centers, educational institutions, recreational and
retail destinations, and commercial centers) provide
secure, weatherproof bicycle parking (i.e., shortterm bicycle parking for visitors and long-term bicycle parking for residents or employees),
personal lockers, showers, and other bicyclesupport facilities. (RDR) M-5.1110 Conversion of Underused Facilities
The City shall convert underused rights-of- way
along roadways, drainage canals, and railroad
corridors to bikeways wherever possible feasible
and desirable. (RDR/MPSP)
M-5.1211 Bike Safety for Children
The City shall support infrastructure and programs
and developin partnerships with the WUSD
Washington Unified School District that encourage
children to bike safely to school. (MPSP/IGC)
M-5.1312 Phasing
The City shall ensure that bikeways connecting to
the existing bikeway system be provided in the first
phase of all major phased developments. (RDR)
Walkability
Policies in this section seek to promote West
Sacramento as a pedestrian-friendly city through
safe, walkable neighborhoods and districts. This
section provides for the development of a
continuous pedestrian network with sidewalks that
are enjoyable places to walk. Residents will be
encouraged to integrate walking into their daily
activities to promote a healthier lifestyle and energy
resource conservation.
GOAL M-6
Develop and maintain a safe, accessible, and
integrated pedestrian system that promotes
walking.
M-6.1 Cohesive Network
The City shall develop maintain a cohesive
pedestrian network of public sidewalks and street
crossings that makes walking a convenient and safe
way to travel. (MPSP)
M-6.2 Continuous Network
The City shall provide a continuous pedestrian
network in existing neighborhoods and require a
continuous pedestrian network in new
neighborhoods that facilitates convenient pedestrian
597
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 15
travel free of major impediments and obstacles.
(RDR/MPSP)
M-6.3 Pedestrian-friendly Streets
The City shall ensure that new streets in areas of
high pedestrian activity support safe and attractive
travel by providing features and amenities such as
separated sidewalks, bicycle lanes and separated
paths, pedestrian signals, street trees, seatings, and
pedestrian-scaled lighting. (RDR/MPSP)
M-6.4 Building Design
The City shall ensure that new buildings are
designed to engage the street and encourage
walking through design features such as placing the
building with entrances facing the street and
providing connections to sidewalks. If parking is
provided, it shall generally be behind or on the side
of buildings. (RDR)
M-6.5 Connecting Destinations
The City shall require new subdivisions and largescale developments to include safe pedestrian walkways that provide direct links between streets
and major destinations such as transit stops and
stations, residential areas, schools, parks, and retail, and servicesshopping centers. (RDR)
M-6.6 Large-scale Redevelopment
When large industrial blocks are redeveloped with
more urban uses, the City shall ensure that
connectivity is provided through direct and safe
pedestrian connections. (RDR)
M-6.7 Safe Pedestrian Crossings
The City shall improve pedestrian safety at
intersections and mid-block locations by providing
pedestrian treatments such as well-marked
pedestrian crossings, bulbouts, or median refuges
that reduce crossing widths, and/ or audible
pedestrian signals. (RDR/MPSP)
M-6.8 Speed Management Policies
The City shall develop and implement speed
management policies that support driving speeds on
all city streets that are safe for pedestrians. (MPSP)
M-6.9 Safe Sidewalks
The City shall develop safe and convenient
pedestrian ways that are universally accessible,
adequately illuminated, and properly designed to
reduce conflicts between motor vehicles and
pedestrians. (RDR/MPSP)
M-6.10 Completion of Sidewalk System
The City shall attempt over time to fill anyidentify
gaps in the sidewalk systems of existing
neighborhoods and seek funding to close these
gaps. (MPSP)
Parking
Policies in this section focus on providing sufficient
parking for businesses, while protecting adjacent
neighborhoods and the environment, and minimizing
space devoted to temporary vehicle storage that
could providebe devoted to housing, economic
development, or another productive use. This
section supports reduced parking requirements,
where appropriate, to promote walkable
communities and non- automobile vehiculear forms
of transportation. , maximizes on-street parking and
minimizes the need for surface parking through the
use of parking management tools, and applies
parking pricing in appropriate locations.
GOAL M-7
To develop and manage both on- and off- street
parking systems that balance citywide goals of
economic development, livable neighborhoods,
and public safety.
M-7.1 Parking
The City shall develop and manage a
comprehensive on- and off-street parking
system that reflects the true cost of private
vehicle use, supports the use of alternative non598
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 16
vehicular transportation, and employs best
available technologies. (MPSP)
M-7.2 Mobility Access over Parking
The City shall ensure that the primary purpose of
streets be the mobility ofis access for people and
goods movement, and that on-street parking be a
secondary and subordinate use only, unless such
on-street parking has been established by the City
as an integral design component. If travel demands
dictate, on-street parking may be eliminated, either
permanently or temporarily, to improve multi-modal
mobility accessfor all modes of travel. (RDR/MPSP)
M-7.3 Replacement of Lost Parking
If construction of additional traffic lanes or creation of bikeways/lanes necessitates removal of on-street
parking spaces, the City shall ensure that the lost onstreet spaces are replaced with an appropriate number of off-street spaces withinshould examine
options for adding parking in the same vicinity, when
feasible, unless such replacement is deemed
unnecessary through a parking study. (RDR/MPSP)
M-7.4 Parking for New Development
The City shall require provision of adequate offstreet parking, as needed, for in conjunction with all new developments. The adequacy and
appropriateness of parking requirements in the
Zoning Ordinance Code shall be periodically
reevaluated and may be revised for a particular
planning area by adoption of a Planned
Development overlay pursuant to the Zoning
Ordinance. (RDR)
M-7.5 Reduce Minimum Parking Standards
The City shall eliminate or reduce minimum parking
standards for private vehicles in transit-oriented
developments, mixed-use developments, and
developments in relatively high-density areas over
time, while increasing and maintaining adequate
parking for shared vehicles, alternative energy
vehicles, bicycles, and other alternative modes of
transportation. The City will consider waiving offstreet parking requirements for new developments in other areas when sufficient evidence is provided that
parking is not necessary at the rate suggested by
City standards. (RDR)
M-7.6 Parking Cash-out
The City shall consider requiring new office
developments with more than 50 employees to offer
a parking “cash-out” program to discourage private
vehicle useencourage commute modes other than a
private vehicle. (RDR)
M-7.7 Reduction of Parking Areas
The City shall strive to reduce the amount of land
devoted to parking through such measures as
development of parking structures, mechanical
parking applications, the application of shared
parking for mixed- use developments, and the
implementation of Transportation Demand
Management plans to reduce parking needs.
(RDR/MPSP)
M-7.8 Electric/Alternative Fuel Vehicle
Parking
The City shall require new large commercial and
retail developments, large employment centers,
high-use public buildings, and parking structures to
provide parking for electric vehicles and electric
vehicle charging infrastructure. Priority parking shall be provided for vehicles using alternative fuelsThe
City shall consider priority parking for vehicles using alternative fuels. (RDR)
M-7.9 Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
The City shall require new large commercial and
retail developments, large employment centers,
high-use public buildings, and parking structures to
provide priority electric vehicle charging
infrastructure. (RDR)
M-7.109 Identify Parking Deficiencies and
Conflicts
The City shall monitor parking supply and utilization
to identify deficiencies or conflicts as they develop,
599
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 17
particularly for public parking areas in the urban
areas. (PSR)
M-7.1110 Shared Parking
The City shall encourage the use of shared parking
programs as conditions of approval in mixed-use
and transit-oriented neighborhoods and districts as
a part of the overall parking management strategy.
(RDR)
M-7.1211 Unbundled Parking
The City shall consider using unbundled parking
(i.e., require parking to be paid for separately and
not included in the base rent) as conditions of
approval for residential and/or commercial space as
a part of the overall parking management strategy.
(RDR)
M-7.1312 Pricing
The City shall use parking pricing and performance
parking to discourage parking congestion. (MPSP)
M-7.1413 Event Parking
The City shall encourage and support efforts to
reduce on-site parking demand and increase public
transit at large events through reduced peripheral
parking rates, discount transit passes, discount
parking, or incentives for carpooling, and bicycle
parking. (MPSP)
M-7.1514 Truck Parking
The City shall prohibit on-street truck parking where
such parking restricts adequate sight distances or
otherwise poses a potentially hazardous situation.
(RDR)
M-7.1615 Parking Improvements
All required parking shall be located on durable and
dustless surfaces except those spaces provided for
temporary or seasonal use. (RDR)
M-7.17186 Safe Parking Facilities
All parking facilities shall be designed and
maintained to provide natural and/or electronic
surveillance in accordance with CPTED principles.
Transportation Demand
Management
Policies in this section seek to reduce travel demand
(specifically that of single- occupancy private
vehicles), and to re-direct travel demand to other
areas or times in order to cost-effectively increase
roadway capacity.
GOAL M-8
To use Transportation Demand Management as
a means to improve system efficiency and
reduce dependence on motor vehicles and
traffic congestion, and expand travel options
and choices.
M-8.1 Transportation Demand and System
Management Tools
The City shall use Transportation Demand
Management tools and programs (e.g., alternative
work schedules, telecommuting, ridesharing) on a
citywide basis to encourage and create incentives
for the use of alternate travel modes. (MPSP)
M-8.2 Enhance Mobility Options
The City shall maintain and enhance mobility options
by supporting public and private transportation
projects that facilitate Transportation Demand
Management. (MPSP/IGC/JP)
M-8.3 Alternative Transportation Commute
Choices
The City shall coordinate with Yolo County
Transportation Management AssociationCommute
efforts to encourage alternative transportation
commute choices. (IGC)
M-8.4 Emerging Technology
The City shall use emerging transportation
technologies and services to increase transportation
system efficiency. (MPSP/SO)
600
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 18
M-8.5 Transportation System Management
Ordinance
The City shall maintain and implement the local
Transportation System Management (TSM)
ordinance to distinguish between the infrastructure
and facilities to be provided by developers and the
trip reduction incentives and programs to be
implemented by employers. (RDR)
M-8.6 Private TDM Programs
The City shall encourage existing major employers
to develop and implement Transportation Demand
Management programs to reduce peak period trip
generation, such as on-site amenities, pedestrian
and bicycle friendly design, and access to transit.
(RDR/JP)
M-8.7 Mitigation through TDM Programs
The City shall consider Transportation Demand
Management programs with achievable trip
reduction goals as partial mitigation for development
project traffic and air quality impacts. (RDR)
Goods Movement
Policies in this section support the movement of
goods via rail, truck, and marine (i.e., Port of West
Sacramento) modes. This section also seeks to
reduce the impacts of rail and truck operations on
adjacent neighborhoods and sensitive land uses.
GOAL M-9
To provide an efficient system for goods
movement that adequately serves the industrial
and commercial areas of the cCity while
protecting residents from potentially adverse
impacts.
M-9.1 Efficient Goods Movement
The City shall support infrastructure improvements
and the use of emerging technologies that facilitate
the clearance, timely movement, and security of
trade, including facilities for the efficient intermodal transfer of goods byetween truck and, rail. , Goods
movement by marine at the Port of West
Sacramento shall be evaluated with respect to
potential conflicts with the City’s mobility network,
and any conflicts shall be reconciled and/or
mitigated to the extent possible. air transportation
modes. (RDR/MPSP)
M-9.2 Goods Movement by Rail
The City shall work with railroad operators to
facilitate the transport by rail of goods through the
city. The City shall monitor short-line rail activity and look for opportunities to minimize its impact on
residents and the City’s mobility network, and shall
exercise its land use authority to minimize conflicts
between rail operations and sensitive land uses. To
the extent practicable, the City shall require that
grade separation of main line railroads and Major
Arterial Streets, particularly those of six four lanes or more. The City shall maximize the use of available
State and Federal federal funds for grade-separated
railroad crossings and encourage railroad
companies to pay their equitable share of any such
projects. (RDR/JP)
M-9.3 Minimize Freight Trains during Peak
Hours
The City shall work with railroad operators and their
customers to coordinate schedules to keep freight
trains from crossing City streets during peak travel
hours. (MPSP/JP)
M-9.4 Truck Traffic Route Update
The City shall update maintain and enforce the city’s
official truck route designations, consistent with for
consistency with the General Plan’s policies and
standards. (RDR/MPSP)
M-9.5 Off-Peak Deliveries
In residential, commercial, or and mixed-use areas,
the City shall encourage business owners to
schedule deliveries at off-peak traffic periods. (RDR)
M-9.6 Rail Relocation
The City shall work with railroad companies, raildependent industries, and property owners in developing an overall strategy for rail lines in West
601
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 19
Sacramento, including plans for the development of
alternative rail access, a schedule for abandonment
of certain rail lines, plans for the ultimate use of
abandoned railroad rights-of-way, and possible City
acquisition of abandoned railroad rights-of-way.
(MPSP/JP)
M-9.7 Quiet Zones
The City shall work to establish quiet zones at all
eligible rail crossings.
M-9.8 Deep Water Ship Channel
The City shall support sustaining federal funding for
maintenance dredging to maintain the current depth
of the Deep Water Ship Channel to support existing
and future maritime business at the Port of West
Sacramento. (MPSP/IGC)
602
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 20
Table 3-5 Mobility
Implementation Programs
20162023-20192026-20212029-AnnualOngoing
Mobility Implementation Program 1. The City shall update its street design standards consistent with complete streets concepts. (RDR/MPSP)
Implements Which Policy(ies)
M-2.1, M-2.73, M-2.4, M-2.5, M-2.97, M-2.8, M-2.11, M-2.12, M-4.5, M-5.5, M-5.6, M-3.1, M-3.107, M-6.3, M-6.76
Responsible Department(s) Public WorksCommunity Development Supporting Department(s) Community Development Capital Projects Mobility Implementation Program 2. The City shall prepare a study that identifies roadway, bikeway, and pedestrian-way gaps between neighborhoods and districtsdestinations. Based on findings from the study, the City shall develop a list of connectivity deficiencies and use the list to prioritize transportation infrastructure planning. (PSR)
Implements Which Policy(ies) M-1.1, M-1.910, M-5.3, M-6.10 Responsible Department(s) Community Development Parks
Supporting Department(s) Capital Projects ommunity Development Mobility Implementation Program 3. The City shall prepare and adopt a methodology that identifies the process for determining which non-vehicular transportation and transit improvements will be implemented where the level of service policy is not accomplished. (PSR) Implements Which Policy(ies) M-3.42, M-3.4
Responsible Department(s) Community Development Public Works Supporting Department(s) Community DevelopmentCapital Projects Mobility Implementation Program 4. The City shall conduct a study to identify major barriers to connectivity and to appropriate means and locations for overcoming those barriers, including potential river crossings. Based on findings from the study, the City shall develop a list of barriers and prepare options for overcoming barriers through future transportation infrastructure planning. (PSR) Implements Which Policy(ies) M-1.89, M-9.6
Responsible Department(s) Community Development Public Works Supporting Department(s) Capital ProjectsCommunity Development Mobility Implementation Program 5. The City shall submit periodic reports to the City Council that summarizes traffic collision data at the top collision locations for automobiles, vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians, and recommend countermeasures where needed. (PSR) Implements Which Policy(ies) M-1.5, M-2.13, M-3.1, M-5.6, M-3.1, M-5.87, M-5.11, M-6.73, M-6.7, M-6.8, M-6.9
Responsible Department(s) Police
Supporting Department(s) Public Works, Community Development 603
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 21
Table 3-5 Mobility
Implementation Programs
20162023-20192026-20212029-AnnualOngoing
Mobility Implementation Program 6. The City will develop, maintain, and implement a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan, a data-driven effort to improve the safety of West Sacramento streets and roads for pedestrians and cyclists. The Comprehensive Safety Action Plan will examine data related to transportation deaths and injuries and identify the factors. The Plan will identify proven safety countermeasures involving education, engineering, enforcement, and evaluation, and the City will collaborate with nonprofit partners, the business community, and/or other public agencies and service organizations to implement the Plan’s recommendations.Mobility Implementation Program 6. The City will conduct a study to evaluate the feasibility of car sharing in West Sacramento and options for partnering with the City of Sacramento and City Car Share or a similar car sharing program. Based on findings from the study, the City shall consider conducting a car sharing pilot program. (PSR) Implements Which
Policy(ies)Implements Which
Policy(ies)
M-1.1, M-2.1, M-2.2, M-2.5, M-2.7, M-2.8, M-2.9, M-2.10, M-2.12, M-2.13, M-3.4, M-3.87, M-3.98, M-3.109, M-5.2, M-5.6, M-5.7, M-5.11, M-6.3, M6.5, M-6.7, M-6.8, M-6.9, M-6.10M-1.1, M-7.7 Responsible
Department(s)Responsible
Department(s)
Community Development Public Works
Supporting
Department(s)Supporting
Department(s)
Public Works Operations and Maintenance, Capital ProjectsN/A Mobility Implementation Program 7. The City shall regularly use the City’s public communication tools (website, social media applications, City Lights newsletter, cable access television, utility bills, Commissions, etc.) to educate the public and City staff on low carbon transportation alternatives. (SO/PI)
Implements Which Policy(ies) M-1.5, M-8.1
Responsible Department(s) City Manager’s Office
Supporting Department(s) Community Development N/A
Mobility Implementation Program 8. The City shall conduct a study to identify new, dedicated funding sources for maintenance, operation, and management of the multi-modal transportation system. Based on findings from the study, the City shall consider modifying its fees and pursuing additional funding sources. (PSR)
Implements Which Policy(ies) M-1.12, M-1.13, M-3.1191.14 Responsible Department(s) Public WorksCapital Projects
Supporting Department(s) Community Development
Mobility Implementation Program 9. The City shall conduct a study to identify streets that lack complete streets infrastructure and amenities. Based on findings from the Study, the City shall list of those streets that should be prioritized to create a citywide network of complete streets and use the list in transportation infrastructure planning. (PSR)
Implements Which Policy(ies) M-2.108, M-6.10
Responsible Department(s) Public WorksCapital Projects
Supporting Department(s) Community Development
604
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 22
Table 3-5 Mobility
Implementation Programs
20162023-20192026-20212029-AnnualOngoing
Mobility Implementation Program 10. The City shall establish and maintain a Complete Streets Advisory Committee comprised of City staff to review the design of all new street construction and reconstruction. (SO/PI)
Implements Which Policy(ies) M-2.1, M-2.3, M-2.4, M-2.5, M-2.7, M-2.8, M-2.11, M-2.12, M-4.5, M-5.5, M-
5.6, M-6.3, M-6.6
Responsible Department(s) PCapital Projects ublic Works Supporting Department(s) Community Development
Mobility Implementation Program 11. The City shall expand the city’s existing wayfinding programs to other areas of the city and improve wayfinding signage. (MPSP) Implements Which Policy(ies) M-1.2, M-5.36, M-6.37
Responsible Department(s) ParksCapital Projects
Supporting Department(s) Community Development
Mobility Implementation Program 12. The City shall review and update the Bicycle, and Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan at least every five years. (MPSP) Implements Which Policy(ies) M-5.1
Responsible Department(s) Public WorksCommunity Development Supporting Department(s) CapitolCapital Projects ommunity Development, Parks Mobility Implementation Program 13. The City shall update the existing transportation impact fee program to reflect new and revised policies related to reducing VMT, such as supporting increased travel by walking, bicycling, and transit.The City shall update its traffic fee study and traffic impact study guidelines to reflect new level of service standard. The relative amount of transportation impacts fees shall be determined by the relative vehicular transportation demand (VMT) of the identified projects, as determined by the by the expected VMT based on project location within a low-VMT area of the City, the density/intensity of the project, mix of uses in the immediate vicinity, proximity to regional destination, and other relevant factors. (RDR)
Implements Which Policy(ies) M-1.3, M-1.14M-3.2, M-3.3, M-3.4 Responsible Department(s) Public Works Community Development Supporting Department(s) Capital Projects, Community Economic Development and Housing 605
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 23
Table 3-5 Mobility
Implementation Programs
20162023-20192026-20212029-AnnualOngoing
Mobility Implementation Program 14. The City shall develop and implement a VMT Reduction Program that would includes VMT-reduction strategies. Projects and plans in Transit Priority Areas and in low-VMT areas are exempt from this VMT Reduction Program. Low-VMT areas for the purpose of this program are those identified by the City or by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments to produce VMT per capita or per employee that is 85 percent or less of the existing or future VMT rate for the City or the region. Figures M-2 and M-3 show in green examples of relatively low-VMT locations in West Sacramento, though the most upto-date available information should be used to determine project sites that are not subject to the City’s VMT reduction program. Residential projects that provide at least 50 percent of proposed units as deed-restricted for lower-income households and/or that can demonstrate project-level VMT is 15% below regional average are exempt from this VMT reduction program. Public facilities and infrastructure projects, active transportation projects, and projects that would generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day are exempt from the VMT Reduction Program. Local serving retail and commercial services of less than 50,000 square feet in gross building area are also exempt. The City’s VMT Reduction Program will require proposed land development projects to incorporate, as feasible, reasonable, and applicable, the below listed strategies to reduce travel demand and associated adverse physical environmental impacts, such as greenhouse gas emissions and transportation-related noise. Quantified VMT reductions should be based on the guidance in this Implementation Program and an assessment of specific characteristics of future projects relative to the substantial guidance available in academic literature. The below list of VMT reduction measures are not exhaustive, and other measures that reduce VMT could be developed on a case-by-case basis. This projectfocused VMT Reduction Program will complement VMT reduction Actions pursued by the City in the Climate Action Plan, such as allocating funding to expand the active transportation and micro-mobility network.
Enforcement for non-physical reduction strategies below would could include requiring project applicants to make publicly available (i.e., permanent signage at the site or on a website) all elected VMT reduction measure commitments. Commitments should include relevant VMT reduction measures, implementation timelines, performance metrics, and appropriate project points of contacts to address any questions or concerns and provide feedback.
VMT REDUCTION MEASURE EFFICACY *
14-1. Employer Commute Trip Reduction Program. Employer provides information, coordination, and marketing for incentives and services that discourage single occupancy vehicle trips and encourage carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. Implement a marketing strategy to promote the Commute Trip Reduction Program - employees about their travel choices to the employment location beyond driving such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. Employer provides platform for coordinating carpooling and a guaranteed ride home.
Up to 4 percent reduction in commute- related VMT.
14-2. Employer Ridesharing Program. Involves transportation management association with funding requirements for employers.
Encourages carpooled vehicle trips in place of single-occupied vehicle trips, with designated preferred parking spaces for ridesharing vehicles, adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ridesharing vehicles, and an app or website for coordinating rides.
Up to 8 percent reduction in commute- related VMT.
14-3. Subsidized Transit Program. Employer or multi-family property owner provides subsidized transit – either reduced cost or free for employees and/or residents.
Up to 5.5 percent reduction in commute related VMT –
either residential or employee VMT or both in a mixed-use project.
14-4. Employer End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities. Install and maintain bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. Provide in proportion to commuting bicyclists. Including marketing to encourage use of facilities and on-site bicycle repair tools. Post signage and information on how to use secure parking and personal lockers.
Up to 4.4 percent reduction in commute- related VMT.
606
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 24
Table 3-5 Mobility
Implementation Programs
20162023-20192026-20212029-AnnualOngoing
14-5. Employer-Sponsored Vanpool Program. Provide vehicle/s for 5 to 15 people and either hired dedicated drivers or incentives for employees to serve in this capacity. Focus on groups of employees that have a similar origin and destination. Provide preferred parking for employees that vanpool.
Up to 20.4 percent reduction in commute- related VMT.
14-6. Employee Parking Cash Out Program. Program would provide “cash out” for employees that agree not to use employer provided parking in exchange for a monthly payout of the avoided cost of that parking place.
Up to 12 percent reduction in commute- related VMT.
14-7. Price Workplace Parking. Charge employees to park at place of work and validate parking only for guests. Provide marketing and education regarding available alternatives to driving to work. Ensure that other transportation options are available, convenient, and have competitive travel times. Combine with other VMT Reduction Measures, as needed, to ensure viable alternatives.
Up to 20.0 percent reduction in commute- related VMT.
14-8. Reduce Residential Parking Supply. For new residential project, or residential portion of a mixed-use project, provide off-street parking in an amount that is less than, for example, what would be the calculated demand using the ITE Parking Generation Manual, which would range from 1 space per unit for 1-bedroom, multi-family units to
2.6 spaces per unit for 3-bedroom, single-family units. 14-8. Implement Reduced Parking Supply Strategy. For new residential projects, or residential portion of a mixed-use projects, provide off-street parking in an amount that is less than, for example, what would be the calculated demand using the ITE Parking Generation Manual, which would range from 1 space per unit for 1- bedroom, multi-family units to 2.6 spaces per unit for 3-bedroom, single-family units. For new Commercial/Employment uses, provide parking in an amount no more than 0.7 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of new development. Further, design parking areas to provide “preferential” parking spaces for carpools and vanpools.
Up to 13.7 percent reduction in household- generated VMT.
14-9. Unbundled Residential Parking. Separate parking costs from total rent for a multi-family residential property requiring those who wish to purchase parking spaces to do so at an additional cost. Ensure viable alternatives for travel to meet daily needs for residents that opt out of on-site parking.
Up to 15.7 percent reduction in household- generated VMT.
14-10. Pro-Rata Contribution. Projects may also contribute impact fees at a level necessary to reduce a project’s net VMT per capita or per employee to 85 percent or less than the citywide or regional average. This would require the City to develop a nexus and range of project types that would reduce VMT within West Sacramento, though impact fees contributed for a project do not need to reduce VMT in the same area as the project site. The City may also allow projects to construct and dedicate to the City or other public agency facilities shown to reduce VMT, such as active transportation projects, projects to fill sidewalk gaps in West Sacramento near important destinations, projects that would construct high-quality bicycle facilities that would eliminate a cycling barrier between homes and destinations, and other VMT-reducing facilities.
To be determined by the City.
14-11. Improve Network Connectivity. ForThis measure could be relevant to infill developments or new developments with property subdivisions, and involves a relatively more connected transportation network that allows multiple routes between homes and nearby destinations. In general, a grid street network or modified grid is the ideal arrangement for a highly connected transportation network. The degree of connectivity is measured according to intersection density, but would also involve relatively short block lengths. new or development projects, To be determined by the CityIntersection Density: Up to 617 percent reduction in VMT, based on relative
intersection density percentage increase compared to
existing intersection density percentage increase in project areawithin project site and immediately adjacent
intersections. VMT reduction would range from
607
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 25
Table 3-5 Mobility
Implementation Programs
20162023-20192026-20212029-AnnualOngoing
design an improved project with relatively higher density of intersections compared to the original unimproved proposed project. The improved project could include building a new grid street network in a subdivision, retrofitting an existing street network to improve connectivity (I.e. converting cul-de-sacs to grid streets or constructing a bicycle and pedestrian accessible tunnel or bridge), design maximum block lengths of no more than 600 feet, or include pedestrian connections at least every 300 feet.
approximately 1 percent for 40 intersections per square mile to 17 percent for 87 intersections per square mile.. 14-12. Increase Housing Density. For new or redevelopment housing projects, design an improved project with relatively higher density of dwelling units in an area that supports bicycle, pedestrian, and/or transit access to reach daily destinations.
Up to 30 percent reduction in household-generated VMT
Up to a 30-percent reduction, with a 1-percent reduction awarded for 9 units per acre and Housing Density: VMT
reduction would range from approximately Between 0.8
percent and 30 percent reduction in VMT, with a 0.8-
percent reduction assigned at 8.5 units per acre anda 30- percent reduction atfor 40 units per acre..
14-13. Increase Employment Density. For new or redevelopment projects, design an improved project with higher density of jobs when compared to the average job density within 0.5-mile radius to encourage shorter and fewer commute trips.
Up to 30 percent reduction in employment-generated VMT
acre and 30-percent reduction at 40 units per acre.
Employment Density:Up to a 30-percent reduction in VMT
with a 1-percent reduction at 22 jobs per acre Between 3 percent and 30- percent reduction in VMT, with a 3 percent assigned at 25 jobs per acre and 30- percent reduction at 100at 70 jobs per acre.
14-14. Land Use Mix. For new or redevelopment projects, include a variety of land uses such as residential, office, retail, services, recreation, and education, mixed in close proximity (within ¼ mile). Or, propose a project that would diversify the existing land use mix within a ¼ mile area by, for example, adding compact housing that is walkable to existing employment, retail, and commercial services.
Up to a 30-percent reduction in VMT, based on the relative degree of land use mix. One way to calculate the VMT
reduction associated with land use mix would be to use a land use index of 0.09 to 1, where 0.09 is a single land use and 1 is the full suite of complementary land uses, which would generally include single-family residential, multifamily residential, retail, services, recreation, and institutional. VMT reduction would range from 8 percent for a project or walkable area with 90 percent single-family residential and 10 percent multi-family residential to 30 percent for a project or walkable area that includes 25 percent single-family residential 25 percent multi-family residential, 25 percent retail, and 25 percent institutional uses.
608
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 26
Table 3-5 Mobility
Implementation Programs
20162023-20192026-20212029-AnnualOngoing
Figure
M-2:
Existing VMT per Capita, Household-Generated VMT Figure M-3: 2040 VMT per Capita, Household-Generated VMT
Implements Which Policy(ies)
M-1.1, M-1.2, M-1.3, M-1.4, M-1.8, M-1.9, M-1.10, M-1.11, M1.12, M-1.13, M-1.14, M-2.1, M-2.2, M-2.4, M-2.5, M-2.7, M2.8, M-2.9, M-2.10, M-2.12, M-3.1, M-3.6, M-3.7, M-4.1, M4.3, M-4.4, M-4.5, M-4.7, M-4.8, M-4.9, M-4.15, M-5.1, M-5.2, M-5.3, M-5.4, M-5.5, M-5.6, M-5.8, M-5.9, M-5.10, M-6.1, M6.2, M-6.3, M-6.4, M-6.5, M-6.6, M-6.10, M-7.5, M-7.6, M-7.7, M-7.1211, M-7.1312, M-8.1, M-8.2, M-8.3, M-8.5, M-8.6, M8.7
Responsible Department(s) Community Development
Supporting Department(s) Public Works
609
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 27
Table 3-5 Mobility
Implementation Programs
20162023-20192026-20212029-AnnualOngoing
14. The City shall prepare a project study report in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) that re-envisions the state highway system in West Sacramento and the streets in the Jefferson Boulevard and Interstate 80 business loop interchange area for all modes of transportation. The project study area should include the entire interchange and areas bounded by Westacre Road to the west, West Capitol Avenue to the north, 15th Street to the south, and 5th Street to east. The report will include recommendations to reduce barriers and improve connectivity and safety for walking, rolling, bicycling, and other non-vehicular transportation modes between the Bridge District, Central Business District, and City's transit hub. Co-benefits may include additional land made available for low-VMT development. conduct a study to identify appropriate routes and roadway markings/signage for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) within the between urban districts and along corridors. Based on findings from the study, the City shall consider preparing a NEV transportation plan and designating certain roadways for NEVs and installing appropriate infrastructure and signage. (PSR)
Implements Which Policy(ies)
M-M-1.1, M-1.2, M-1.3, M-1.5, M-1.6, M-1.9, M-1.10, M-2.2, M-2.4, M2.10, M-3.1, M-3.6, M-5.2, M-6.1, M-6.2, M-6.3, M-6.73.10 Responsible Department(s) Community DevelopmentPublic Works Supporting Department(s) Economic Development and Housing Police; Community Development
15. The City shall continue its efforts to manage neighborhood traffic by incorporating traffic control measures and other improvements into existing and new residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. (MPSP/SO)
Implements Which Policy(ies) M-1.5, M-3.6, M-3.7, M-3.8, M-3.9, M-3.10 Responsible Department(s) Community Development (new), Public Works (existing)Capitol Projects Supporting Department(s) Police
16. The City shall conduct a study to identify gaps in transit service provided within the city and strategies to fill them. Based on findings from the study, the City shall work with Yolobus and Sacramento RT to fill identified gaps and provide better transit service. (PSR) Implements Which Policy(ies) M-4.1, M-4.2, M-4.3, M-4.4, M-4.67, M-4.78, M-4.89, M-4.13 Responsible Department(s) Public WorksCommunity Development Supporting Department(s) Community Development
17. The City shall, in coordination with the City of Sacramento and SACOG, work with Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) to establish Light Rail Transit (LRT) service and stations between Sacramento Valley Station and Sutter Health Park develop a streetcar system and develop a plan for implementing future the extensions of light railLRT service within West Sacramento. (IGC) Implements Which Policy(ies) M-4.9
Responsible Department(s) Public WorksCommunity Development Supporting Department(s) CapitolCapital Projectsommunity Development, Economic Development& and Housing, City Manager’s Office
610
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 28
Table 3-5 Mobility
Implementation Programs
20162023-20192026-20212029-AnnualOngoing
18. The City shall review and update the Zoning Ordinance Code to require bicycle support facilities (e.g., bicycle racks, personal lockers, and other bicycle support facilities) as a part of large development and redevelopment projects. (IGC)
Implements Which Policy(ies) M-1.3, M-5.98, M-5.9, M-5.10 Responsible Department(s) Community Development
Supporting Department(s) N/A Public Works
19. The City shall conduct a study to identify underused rights-of-way, such as street lanes, drainage canals, and railroad corridors, to convert to bikeways and/or pedestrian-ways. Based on findings from the study, the City shall prepare list of rights-of-ways that should be prioritized for conversion and prepare a strategy to acquire and develop them into additional bike and pedestrian paths. (PSR) Implements Which Policy(ies) M-5.1110
Responsible Department(s) Public WorksCommunity Development Department(s) CapitolCapital Projects Community Development, Parks, Economic Development & and Housing
20. The City shall conduct a study of current parking requirements to evaluate options for dedicated parking spaces for car-sharing and incentives (e.g., receive credit for meeting the “parking minimum” zoning requirements). Based on findings from the study, the City shall consider updatingwill update parking standards, and consider the use of parking benefit districts that invest parking meter revenues in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, features, and amenities. (PSR) Implements Which Policy(ies) M-7.1, M-7.2, M-7.4, M-7.5, M-7.7, M-7.8, M-7.109, M-7-12 Responsible Department(s) Community Development Public Works Supporting Department(s) Community Development, Economic Development & and Housing
21. The City shall investigate alternatives to the current residential permit parking policy that would provide alternative time restrictions to allow non-residents to park in controlled areas during the day for commercial reasons in residential permit parking areas. (RDR/PSR) Implements Which Policy(ies) M-7.1
Responsible Department(s) Economic Development &and HousingPublic Works Supporting Department(s) Community Development, Capitoal Projects Economic Development & Housing
22. The City shall review and update the Zoning Ordinance Code to require the provision of prime parking spaces for carpool and alternative energy automobiles vehicles. (RDR) Implements Which Policy(ies) M-7.8
Responsible Department(s) Community Development
Supporting Department(s) N/A
23. The City shall update and enhance its Transportation System Management Ordinance consistent with the policies of the General Plan. (RDR)
611
General Plan PART 2
Policy Document MOBILITY ELEMENT
P a g e | 29
Table 3-5 Mobility
Implementation Programs
20162023-20192026-20212029-AnnualOngoing
Implements Which Policy(ies) M-8.1, M-8.5
Responsible Department(s) Community DevelopmentPublic Works Supporting Department(s) N/A Community Development
24. The City shall develop and implement Intelligent Transportation Systems Technology to manage vehicles, loads, and routes, improve safety, and reduce vehicle wear, transportation times, and fuel costs. (MPSP)
Implements Which Policy(ies) M-8.4
Responsible Department(s) Public WorksCommunity Development Supporting Department(s) Capital Projects Community Development
25. The City shall update the city’s official truck routes consistent with the General Plan policies and standards including minimizing the impacts of truck traffic, deliveries, and staging in residential and mixed-use areas. (RDR)
Implements Which Policy(ies) M-9.4
Responsible Department(s) Capital Projects Public Works Supporting Department(s) Community Development, Police
612
Urban Streetscape and
Design Standards
WEST SACRAMENTO BRIDGE DISTRICT
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
September 16 2009
updated October 2023
Attachment 2
613
Attachment 2
614
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS
Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................5 Intent ..........................................................................................................................................................5 Components ...............................................................................................................................................6 Building Frontage and the Order of Streets..............................................................................................6 How to Use the Standards ........................................................................................................................7 Administration ............................................................................................................................................7
2. THE REGULATING PLAN
How to Use the Regulating Plan ...............................................................................................................8 Regulating Plan ..........................................................................................................................................8 Overview of Street Types ...........................................................................................................................9
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................15 Street Types .............................................................................................................................................15 Organization of StreetscapeStandards ..................................................................................................16 Zones of the Sidewalk .............................................................................................................................17 Standards for “Through Streets”
1. Riverfront Retail Street ..............................................................................................................18
2. Riverfront Transition ..................................................................................................................20
3. Grand .........................................................................................................................................22
4. Fifth Street .................................................................................................................................26
5. Riverfront View Streets ..............................................................................................................27
6. Local Streets ..............................................................................................................................34 Standards for “Access Streets”
Zones of Privacy on Access Streets ..............................................................................................38 “Stubbed” Access Streets .............................................................................................................39 Riverfront View Universal Streets ...................................................................................40 Connecting Access Streets ...........................................................................................................45 Loop Roads ......................................................................................................................46 Internal Universal Streets ...............................................................................................48 Attachment 2
615
4 General Streetscape Standards .............................................................................................................51
1. Plant Strip Treatment ................................................................................................................54
2. Materials ....................................................................................................................................50
3. Furnishings and Utilities ............................................................................................................59
4. Access and Service ....................................................................................................................61
5. Corners and Crossings ...............................................................................................................65
6. Bicycles .......................................................................................................................................69
4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Intent .........................................................................................................................................................71 Organization .............................................................................................................................................71 How to Use These Standards ..................................................................................................................71 Building Frontage and the Order of Streets ...........................................................................................72 Building Frontage Descriptions ...............................................................................................................73 Allowable Building Frontages by Street Type ..........................................................................................74 Land Use Requirements ..........................................................................................................................76 Standards for Frontage Types .................................................................................................................77 Building Setbacks Along the Waterfront Promenade ............................................................................83 Building Frontage Requirements ............................................................................................................84
5. SUSTAINABILITY GUIDELINES
Intent .........................................................................................................................................................85 Guidelines .................................................................................................................................................85 Attachment 2
616
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 5
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS
PURPOSE
The purpose of these Urban Streetscape and Design Standards is to establish guidelines that will direct the aesthetic character of the Bridge District, the specific treatments of its streets and sidewalks, and the uses and form of its buildings.
INTENT OF THE DESIGN STANDARDS
The intent of these design standards is to ensure that new development and redevelopment within the Bridge District creates a unified and cohesive public environment within the new district. Each street and each of the buildings along that street should create a clear sense of identity and character for that street, and reinforce that street’s “role” within the larger district network. Streetscape and building design within the Bridge District should be oriented to the pedestrian, and should work together to create a high quality public realm as it is experienced from the sidewalk.
Because the identity of a neighborhood or district is largely determined by it’s streets (and how buildings relate to and contribute to the character of those streets), these design standards are organized by street type. Each street within the Bridge District will have a unique character and place within the larger network of streets. The streetscape and building design standards in the following sections are intended to reinforce the unique character that is envisioned for each particular street.
Attachment 2
617
6 1. INTRODUCTION
COMPONENTS
The design standards are divided into five sections:
• Section 1 explains the intent, organization, process, and administration of the design standards.
• Section 2 introduces the Regulating Plan for the Bridge District. The Regulating Plan illustrates the “Vision” for the district, defining each street’s character and role within the greater street hierarchy, and explaining in greater detail the intent of each street type. Each of the streetscape and building design standards in Sections 3 and 4 are “keyed” to this Regulating Plan.
• Section 3 outlines the streetscape design standards for each of the street types identified in the Regulating Plan. The streetscape design standards focus primarily on the design of the pedestrian realm (the sidewalk or public access easement).
• Section 4 outlines the building design standards for the district, which directly relate to and are unique for each street type within the framework of the Regulating Plan. The building design standards focus on that part of the building that most directly impacts the public realm, namely, the ground floor facade as it is experienced from the sidewalk. • Section 5 recommends sustainability guidelines intended to ensure the long-term viability of the district. These guidelines relate to individual building siting and design considerations, as well as larger-scale public measures that may be undertaken during streetscape planning and design.
Higher order to lower
order streets
1. Riverfront Retail Street
4. Fifth Street
3. Grand
5. Riverfront View Street
6. Local Street
7. Internal Universal Street
2. Riverfront Transition
The design and development standards within this document are organized around the district’s street hierarchy, and streets within the Regulating Plan are presented in descending order of prominence. Buildings must have their primary frontage oriented to the highest order street facing the lot. For the purposes of this document, “building frontage” is defined as a building’s front, street-facing, ground level facade, which must include the primary building entrance (i.e., the “front door”). For example, all buildings along Grand must have their front doors oriented to and directly connected to the sidewalk along that street. Buildings on corner lots must have their primary frontage facing the higher order street. For example, a building on the corner of Grand and Fifth Street would have Grand as its primary “frontage.” If a property owner chooses, however, lots with two street frontages may orient buildings to the corner in lieu of facing the higher order street only.
Buildings that front both Riverfront and Grand, however, may choose to orient their primary building entrance to either of these two streets (despite Riverfront being the higher order street), if the building’s design would most benefit from doing so. Buildings must still comply with building frontage standards along both street frontages.
BUILDING FRONTAGE AND THE ORDER OF STREETS
Attachment 2
618
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 7
1. INTRODUCTION
HOW TO USE THE STANDARDS
The standards applicable to a given parcel may be determined by:
1. First look to the Regulating Plan in Section 2 to determine the type of street on which the parcel fronts.
2. Once the street type is determined, look to Section 3 for the streetscape design standards applicable to that street type
3. Look to Section 4 for the building design standards (building frontage, setbacks, ground floor design) applicable to lots fronting that particular street type.
Note that parcels located at corner intersections must comply with the standards for each street type on which the property fronts.
The sustainability guidelines in Section 5 are intended to encourage new development within the Bridge District to employ siting and building design practices that minimize the ecological impact of the built environment. For the present, these guidelines are voluntary.
ADMINISTRATION
The standards presented in this document will guide all development and redevelopment approvals within the Bridge District planning area. These standards are guided by the regulating plan, which uses the street hierarchy to dictate desired architectural development in the planning area. In the event that a contradiction occurs between the West Sacramento Zoning Ordinance and this code, this code will rule. Standards within the West Sacramento Zoning Ordinance not explicitly addressed by this document will remain applicable to development within the district.
Attachment 2
619
8 2. THE REGULATING PLAN
HOW TO USE THE REGULATING PLAN
The Regulating Plan for the Bridge District (below) organizes each street within the planning area into one of 7 street types: Riverfront Retail Street, Riverfront Transition, Fifth Street, Grand, Riverfront View Streets, Local Streets, and Internal Universal Streets. While specific right-of-way dimensions may vary within a specific street type, the character and role of that street will be consistent. As described in Section 1, the streetscape and building design standards outlined in Sections 3 and 4 are organized by these street types, and are thereby “keyed” to this regulating plan. See the following section for a detailed description of each of these street types.
REGULATING PLAN KEY
1. Riverfront Retail Street
4. Fifth Street
3. Grand
2. Riverfront Transition
5a. Riverfront View Streets
6. Local Street
7. Internal Universal Street
5b. Riverfront View Universal Streets
In addition to the mapped Riverfront
View Universal Streets, blocks
between Riverfront and the waterfront
may provide at least one additional
Riverfront View Universal Street to
provide additional access. The exact
location of these additional streets
within the block may be determined by
the property owner.
THE REGULATING PLAN
1, 2
1 Loop Roads are an optional subtype
of Riverfront View Universal Streets, and
provide circulation between Riverfront
and the Waterfront Promenade.
The intent of these loop roads is
to provide vehicular access to and
from individual buildings along the
waterfront, as well as providing access
to the waterfront itself. Loop roads
shall not connect to Riverfront Plaza
or to the Ballpark Drive/Tower Bridge
Universal Street, nor may they connect
to more than two Riverfront View
Universal Streets.
2 see note 2
see note 2
Attachment 2
620
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 9
2. THE REGULATING PLAN
OVERVIEW OF STREET TYPES
The following describes the desired character for each of the unique street types within the Bridge District. These statements inform the streetscape and building design standards associated with each street type found in the district.
Riverfront will be the primary pedestrian retail street within the district, and accordingly, will serve in many ways as a “center” of the Bridge District. It is anchored by Ballpark Drive at the north, and Triangle Street to the south.
Riverfront Retail Street is envisioned as a pedestrian-oriented street, and may provide both destination and neighborhood-serving dining and retail. A new streetcar line planned for Riverfront will further emphasize its importance within the district. Buildings will be mixed-use, providing retail uses at the ground floor (required), with residential and/or office uses on upper floors. Accordingly, the streetscape design is intended to create an interesting, inviting, and safe environment for large numbers of pedestrians, and will reinforce the retail function of the street. Building design standards will focus on creating retail-friendly buildings that encourage and enhance pedestrian activity.
Riverfront Transition links the retail–oriented uses along Riverfront to its intersection with Fifth Street, and is intended to encourage residential and office uses. The transition between the two zones is largely the result of the US 50 overpass. Small scale retail and light commercial uses are encouraged to locate in this area due to the reduced level of pedestrian amenities and distance from the Grand intersection.
This segment is seen primarily as a connection to the uses proposed along Fifth Street.
1. Riverfront Retail Street
2. Riverfront Transition
Attachment 2
621
10 2. THE REGULATING PLAN
This street, inland and parallel to Riverfront, is envisioned as a higher volume vehicular route in contrast to the pedestrian-oriented nature of Riverfront. While ground floor retail uses are certainly encouraged, these streets may be primarily characterized by office and residential uses. Although building mass may be similar (or possibly greater) than along Riverfront, the overall feeling of these streets will be a less intense contrast to the active street life of Riverfront.
4. Fifth Street
Grand is the civic street within the Bridge District. It will serve as the gateway into the district, linking existing civic uses west of the district to the West Sacramento Riverfront.
To highlight this ceremonial procession to the river, Grand will be wide, with special paving and curbs, tree-lined, with a median and sustainable bio-swale for part of its dimension. The street will provide a large, fine-leafed tree canopy to shade walkways and the street, and the streetscape character will re-enforce this “green” vision. Public art is especially encouraged along Grand. This park-like setting lends itself to quieter residential and smaller-scaled retail uses in contrast to the busy retail found along Riverfront.
3. Grand
Attachment 2
622
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 11
2. THE REGULATING PLAN
In contrast to the more intense Riverfront and Fifth Street, which run parallel to the river, Riverfront View Streets run perpendicular to the river, framing views toward it and providing easy and direct pedestrian connections to the Riverfront Promenade. These east-west streets are envisioned as a quiet contrast to the busier, north-south running streets, and their function as riverfront access corridors particularly lend themselves to neighborhood residential uses and smaller-scaled, neighborhood serving commercial uses.
5a. Riverfront View Streets
On the east side of Riverfront, Riverfront View Streets become multi-modal “Universal Streets.” These Riverfront View Universal Streets are intended to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles as well as provide vehicular access to individual buildings and/or the Riverfront Promenade within the same street space. The streetscape requirements will reinforce the shared nature of these streets through paving, bollards, landscape and street furniture placement. All building frontage types are permitted on Riverfront View Streets (see Section 4 for details).
Like Riverfront View Streets, Riverfront View Universal Streets are envisioned as a quiet contrast to the busier, north-south running streets, and their function as riverfront access corridors particularly lend themselves to neighborhood residential uses and smaller-scaled, neighborhood serving commercial uses. 5b. Riverfront View Universal Streets
Attachment 2
623
12 2. THE REGULATING PLAN
Local streets are smaller in scale than other streets in the district, and are envisioned as serving primarily residential uses. Accordingly, the streetscape treatments and building design along Local Streets should re-enforce the quiet nature of these streets.
6. Local Streets
Attachment 2
624
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 13
2. THE REGULATING PLAN
Internal Universal Streets are intended to break up large blocks in order to create smaller, more pedestrian-friendly block sizes. They will provide vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle access to the interiors of blocks within the same, shared street space. Driveways and parking areas should preferably be accessed off of these streets, and building service functions are encouraged to occur along Internal Universal Streets rather than other, higher function streets. Buildings are encouraged to provide frontage along Internal Universal Streets. In instances where buildings do front the street, retail uses (such as outdoor dining) may spill out onto the street. The streetscape requirements will reinforce the shared nature of these streets through paving and curb treatments, and street furniture placement.
7. Internal Universal Streets
Attachment 2
625
14 This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 2
626
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 15
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
PURPOSE
The purpose of the streetscape design standards is to facilitate each street within the Bridge District (both public and private) creating an ordered and welldesigned public realm, an inviting environment for pedestrians, and a functional environment for vehicular traffic and transit. The streetscape standards reinforce the unique character of each street type of the Regulating Plan.
THROUGH STREETS
ACCESS STREETS
There are two types of streets within the Bridge District: “through streets” and “access streets.”
Through streets are the backbone of the districts’s gridded street system. They provide vehicular access to and through the district. These streets are designed to accommodate vehicular and bicycle traffic in the roadway, and pedestrian traffic along the sidewalk.
Note that buildings along Riverfront are required to provide retail uses along the ground floor, while buildings along segments of Grand must be “retail convertible” along the ground floor. See page 76 for specific requirements.
Access streets are intended to break large blocks into smaller, more pedestrianfriendly sized blocks and development parcels. They provide multi-modal connections through and into blocks and parcels, connecting to through streets on both sides (or alternatively, to through streets on one side, and to the Waterfront Promenade on the other). Access streets within the Bridge District may be one of two types: Riverfront View Universal Streets or Internal Universal Streets. In the case of Riverfront View and Internal Universal Streets, multiple modes are accommodated in the same, uncurbed roadway space (see pages 37-50 for details).
STREET TYPES
Attachment 2
627
16 The streetscape standards are organized into three subsections. Subsections A and B are primarily focused on the pedestrian realm, and illustrate how the pedestrian zone of the right-of-way (the area between the curb and the building face) shall be allocated for the furnishing zone, the clear (passage) zone, and the building frontage zone of the sidewalk. In some instances, buildings may be required to be set back behind the property line in order to provide for an adequate building frontage zone along the face of the building. Subsection A outlines the standards for all “through streets” in the Bridge District, while Subsection B describes the standards related to multi-modal “access streets.” Subsection C outlines, in matrix form, general streetscape standards applicable to both through streets and access streets relating to the following topics:
• Plant Strip - These standards outline the plant strip treatment to be used along each street type (i.e., tree grates versus landscaped beds), suggested tree species and street tree spacing recommended for individual streets, and other landscape requirements as applicable. • Materials - These standards provide specifications for street surface and parking zone paving materials, the individual zones of the sidewalk, pedestrian crosswalks, and curbs.
• Furnishings and Utilities - These standards regulate the location of elements such as street furniture such as benches, trash cans, newspaper boxes, and utility devices such as backflow valves, utility boxes, etc.
• Access and Service - These standards establish whether curb cuts and driveways are permitted along the street type, and provides curb cut spacing standards where driveways are permitted. This section also outlines whether service functions (i.e., garbage and recycling collection) are permitted along the particular street type.
• Corners and Crossings - These standards illustrate where bulbouts are required, and provides guidelines on their dimensional layouts (including general dimensional requirements at intersections where future streetcar stops may occur). This section also outlines standards relating to the location and dimensions of mid-block bulbouts, and includes standards for pedestrian crosswalks.
• Bicycles - This section illustrates where bicycle routes are planned for the district, and outline various standards relating to bicycle safety and identification.
ORGANIZATION OF STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Attachment 2
628
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 17
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
THE ZONES OF THE SIDEWALK
A sidewalk is typically divided into three distinct “zones.” The streetscape standards which follow include standards relating to dimensions, materials, and furnishings for each of these three zones.
The furnishing zone is that area of the sidewalk directly adjacent to the curb, and is the area where street trees, vegetation beds, and street furniture such as pedestrian scale lighting, benches and bike racks are located. Business signage (such as A-frame or sandwich boards) may also be located in the furnishing zone.
The clear zone is the through zone of the sidewalk. This is the walking zone of the sidewalk, and as such shall be clear of any furnishings or signage at all times. Along busy retail streets, the clear zone shall be wider than along quieter residential streets in order to accommodate higher volumes of pedestrian traffic.
The building frontage zone is the area directly adjacent and parallel to the building face. This area serves as a buffer between the clear zone and the building itself, and may contain business signage and outdoor dining (when wide enough).
Note that the minimum required building frontage zone for most streets is typically 3 feet. This is wide enough to accommodate a single row of dining tables. If a larger outdoor dining area is desired along the sidewalk, the building must provide a greater setback in order to provide for a larger building frontage zone. furnishing zone
4-9 feet
building frontage zone
3-10 feet
clear zone
5-15 feet
Attachment 2
629
18 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
1. Riverfront Retail Street
RIVERFRONT STREET CROSS-SECTION:
BALLPARK DRIVE TO BRIDGE
roadway
19’ 19’
travel lane/
streetcar travel lane/streetcar parking
13’ 13’
parking
8’ 8’
80’ ROW
sidewalk sidewalk
3.A. Standards for Through Streets
Concept
Riverfront Retail Street is envisioned
as a pedestrian-oriented district, and
may provide both destination and
neighborhood-serving dining and
retail. It is anchored by Ballpark Drive
to the north, and Riverfront Plaza to
the south. Retail uses are required
along the ground floor along Riverfront
Retail Street (see Section 4, “Building
Design Standards” for details). The
streetscape design is intended to
create an interesting, inviting, and
safe environment for large numbers of
pedestrians, and will reinforce the retail
function of the street. See page 68 for
intersection paving requirements.
The pedestrian zone of the right-of-way
shall be allocated as follows:
1.Furnishing Zone:
Curb: The curb zone will consist
of a 6-inch curb and a 1.5-foot
“disembarkment zone.”
Plant Strip: Street tress are to be
provided in 6’ X 6’ tree wells.
2.Clear Zone:
The clear zone shall be 8 feet.
furnishing zone clear zone building
frontage
zone
curb
zone
2’
plant strip
6’ 8’ 3’
19’ total sidewalk
RIVERFRONT: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
BALLPARK DRIVE TO BRIDGE
Attachment 2
630
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 19
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
RIVERFRONT: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM (WITH OPTIONAL BUILDING SETBACK)
BALLPARK DRIVE TO BRIDGE
curb
zone
2’
plant strip
6’ 8’ 3’
furnishing zone clear zone building
frontage
zone
19’ total sidewalk
*optional
bldg. setback
* 3 feet of optional, additional building setback is permitted along the ground floor. This additional 3 feet may be combined with the 3-foot building frontage zone to create a 6-foot outdoor dining area. When this option is exercised, The 6-foot dining area may be delineated from the clear zone through landscaping, transparent fencing, or a supported, lightweight shade structure. Building walls are not permitted. The 6-foot outdoor dining area must provide shading overhead. The shading may be transparent (glass awnings or canopies), semi-transparent (trellises), or opaque (canvas awnings or canopies), and may be supported with brackets along the building face, or through vertical, columnar supports. 3’
outdoor dining area
3.Building Frontage Zone:
The building frontage zone shall
be 3 feet. Buildings may be set
back behind the right-of-way an
additional 3 feet in order to create
a 6-foot zone for outdoor dining.
Attachment 2
631
20 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
RIVERFRONT TRANSITION CROSS SECTION #1:
TOWER BRIDGE GATEWAY TO BALLPARK DRIVE
RIVERFRONT TRANSITION #1: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
TOWER BRIDGE GATEWAY TO BALLPARK DRIVE
roadway
17’ 17’
travel
lane travel lane turn lane travel lane/streetcar sidewalk travel lane/ sidewalk streetcar 13’ 11’ 12’ 11’ 13’
96’ ROW
curb
6”
plant strip
6’ 7’ 6” 3’
furnishing zone clear zone building frontage zone
17’ total sidewalk
2. Riverfront Transition (north)
Concept
Both the north and south segments
of Riverfront Transition will serve
as a transition between the more
intense retail environment along
Riverfront Retail Street and the rest
of the neighborhood. While the north
segment of Riverfront Transition is
expected to be more relatively intense
due to its proximity to the ball park,
pedestrian activity is expected to
be less intense along the southern
segment due to the impacts of the US
50 overpass and its distance from the
prime intersection with Grand. Small
scale retail and light commercial uses
are encouraged to locate along the
Riverfront Transition areas. Accordingly,
the streetscape shall be visually
consistent with Riverfront, with slight
modifications appropriate to a less
intense street.
The pedestrian zone shall be allocated
as follows:
1.Furnishing Zone:
Curb: The curb zone shall consist
of a 6-inch curb. Along Riverfront
Transition South (Triangle Street to
5th Street) an additional 1.5-foot
“disembarkment zone” should be
provided.
Attachment 2
632
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 21
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
2. Riverfront Transition (south)
RIVERFRONT TRANSITION CROSS-SECTION #2
BRIDGE STREET TO THE FIFTH STREET INTERSECTION
roadway
19’ 19’
travel lane/
streetcar travel lane/streetcar parking
13’ 13’
sidewalk parking sidewalk
8’ 8’
80’ ROW
RIVERFRONT TRANSITION #2: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
BRIDGE STREET TO THE FIFTH STREET INTERSECTION
clear zone furnishing zone building
frontage zone
curb
zone
2’
plant strip
3’ 8’ 6’
19’ total sidewalk
Plant Strip: A 6-foot stormwater
planter shall be provided within
the plant strip. (See “d. Plant
Strip” for dimensions and spacing
of stormwater planters, and
standards for plantings and street
tree spacing.)
2.Clear Zone:
Along Riverfront Transition North
(Tower Bridge Gateway to Ballpark
Drive), the clear zone shall be 7
feet, 6 inches. Along Riverfront
Transition South (Bridge Street to
Fifth Street), the clear zone shall
be 8 feet.
3.Building Frontage Zone:
The building frontage zone shall be
3 feet.
Attachment 2
633
22 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
3. Grand
GRAND #1 CROSS-SECTION
TOWER BRIDGE GATEWAY TO BALLPARK DRIVE
GRAND #1: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
TOWER BRIDGE GATEWAY TO BALLPARK DRIVE
Concept
Grand is the civic street within the
Bridge District. It will serve as the
gateway into the district, linking
existing civic uses west of the district
to the West Sacramento Riverfront. To
highlight this ceremonial procession
to the river, Grand will be wide, with
special paving and curbs, and with
a tree-lined median and sustainable
bio-swale for part of its dimension. The
street will provide a large, fine-leafed
tree canopy to shade walkways and the
street, and the streetscape character
will re-enforce this “green” vision.
Grand consists of four distinct, though
visually consistent segments. Details
for segments 1-3 (spanning from Tower
Bridge Gateway to Riverfront Plaza)
may be found within this section. See
page 44 for streetscape requirements
for Riverfront Plaza. See page 68 for
intersection paving requirements.
The pedestrian zone shall be allocated
as follows:
1.Furnishing Zone:
Curb: Along Grand cross segments
#1 and #2, a 6-inch curb will be
provided.
In order to place greater emphasis
on the central importance of
Grand as the principal “spine”
connecting West Sacramento to
the waterfront, Grand segment
roadway median roadway
15’ 15’
travel
lane/
streetcar
travel
lane/
streetcar
travel
lane sidewalk travel sidewalk lane bike lane bike lane
6’ 11’ 12’ 18’ 12’ 11’ 6’
108’ ROW
#3 (between Fifth Street and
Riverfront) is to be designed as
a “curbless” street, whereby the
travel lanes and the sidewalks
are at or near the same grade.
This treatment will emphasize
the pedestrian-oriented nature of
Grand as it approaches Riverfront.
Along this segment, a sloped,
shallow, mountable, 1-foot “curb”
will be provided (see page 56
“Curbs” for details).
Plant Strip: Stormwater planters
2’ 2’
clear zone furnishing zone
curb
6”
plant strip
8’ 7’ 6”
15’ total sidewalk
Attachment 2
634
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 23
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
3. Grand
GRAND #2 CROSS-SECTION
BALLPARK DRIVE TO FIFTH STREET
within the plant strip will manage
street run-off while maximizing
opportunities for green vegetation
along Grand. See “Plant Strip
Treatment” on page 52 for further
detail.
Along Grand segment #2 (between
Ballpark Drive and Fifth Street),
the plant strip may vary in width
as the central median transitions
from Grand north of Ballpark to
Grand east of Fifth. The plant
strip may range from 6 feet to
14 feet, and as it widens, may
accommodate a double row of
trees as it approaches Fifth Street.
Note, however, that while the
width of the plant strip may vary,
the width of the clear zone in this
segment should remain consistent.
Along Grand segment #3 (between
Fifth Street and Riverfront),
stormwater planters will collect
runoff from the sidewalk, while a
continuous trench drain along the
mountable curb will collect streetlevel runoff.
2.Clear Zone:
Along Grand segments #1 and #3,
the clear zone shall be a minimum
of 8 feet, and along Grand
segment #2, the clear zone shall
be a minimum of 10.5 feet.
roadway median roadway
19’ 19’
travel
lane/
streetcar
travel
lane/
streetcar
sidewalk travel sidewalk lane travel
lane bike
lane bike lane
6’ 11’ 13’ 16’ 13’ 11’ 6’
116’ ROW
3’
GRAND #2: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
BALLPARK DRIVE TO FIFTH STREET
clear zone building
frontage
zone
curb
6”
plant strip
6’-14’ 10’ 6”
20’ total sidewalk
furnishing zone
Attachment 2
635
24 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
3.Building Frontage Zone:
No building frontage zone is shown
for Grand segment #1.
Along Grand segment #2, a 3-foot
building frontage zone is required.
Buildings may be set back behind
the right-of-way an additional 3
feet in order to create a 6-foot zone
for outdoor dining.
Along Grand segment #3, the
building frontage zone shall be a
minimum of 10 feet, in order to
accommodate outdoor dining and
other outdoor retail activities. This
zone shall be visually separated
from the clear zone by a five-foot
landscape zone, which shall be
designed to collect stormwater
runoff from the sidewalk. 3’
GRAND #2: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM (WITH OPTIONAL BUILDING SETBACK)
BALLPARK DRIVE TO FIFTH STREET
furnishing zone clear zone building
frontage
zone
curb
6”
plant strip
6’-14’ 10’ 6”
20’ total sidewalk
3’
*optional
bldg. setback
outdoor dining area
* 3 feet of optional, additional building setback is permitted along the ground floor. This additional 3 feet may be combined with the 3-foot building frontage zone to create a 6-foot outdoor dining area. When this option is exercised, The 6-foot dining area may be delineated from the clear zone through landscaping, transparent fencing, or a supported, lightweight shade structure. Building walls are not permitted. The 6-foot outdoor dining area must provide shading overhead. The shading may be transparent (glass awnings or canopies), semitransparent (trellises), or opaque (canvas awnings or canopies), and may be supported with brackets along the building face, or through vertical, columnar supports.
Attachment 2
636
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 25
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
3. Grand
GRAND #3 CROSS-SECTION
FIFTH STREET TO RIVERFRONT
roadway
31’ 31’
shared travel
lane/bike lane
shared travel
lane/bike lane
sidewalk parking parking sidewalk
8’ 13’ 13’ 8’
106’ ROW
GRAND #3: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
FIFTH STREET TO RIVERFRONT
furnishing zone clear zone building frontage zone
sloped
curb
1’
landscape zone
6’ 8’ 10’
31’ total sidewalk
landscape zone
6’
building frontage area
at-grade
drainage
grate
strip
1’
1’ 1’
Attachment 2
637
26 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
4. Fifth Street
Concept
Fifth Street is expected to serve as
a higher volume vehicular route in
contrast to the pedestrian-oriented
nature of Riverfront. While ground floor
retail uses are certainly encouraged,
these streets may be primarily
characterized by office and residential
uses. The streetscape design is
intended to create a pedestrian friendly
environment while recognizing that
pedestrian volumes may be lower than
on Riverfront or Grand.
The pedestrian zone shall be allocated
as follows:
1.Furnishing Zone:
Curb: 6-inch curb.
Plant Strip: 4foot constructed
stormwater planter to be provided
within the plant strip. (See “d.
Plant Strip” for dimensions and
spacing of stormwater planters,
and standards for plantings and
street tree spacing.)
2.Clear Zone:
The clear zone of the sidewalk
shall be 7 feet, 6 inches.
3.Building Frontage Zone:
No building frontage zone is
required, however, buildings may
be set back 3 feet behind the
right-of-way in order to create a
building frontage zone.
FIFTH STREET: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
TOWER BRIDGE GATEWAY TO RIVERFRONT
clear zone furnishing zone
curb
6”
stormwater
planter
7’ 6” 4’
12’ total sidewalk
building frontage zone
3’
optional building
setback
FIFTH STREET CROSS-SECTION
TOWER BRIDGE GATEWAY TO RIVERFRONT
roadway
12’ 12’
sidewalk travel sidewalk lane
11’
travel
lane
11’
turn
lane
12’
travel
lane
11’
bike
lane
6’
bike
lane
6’
92’ ROW
3’ 3’
travel
lane
11’
Attachment 2
638
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 27
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5A. Riverfront View Street
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET CROSS-SECTION #1:
MILL STREET
roadway
16’ 16’
sidewalk parking travel lane travel lane parking sidewalk 8’ 12’ 12’ 8’
76’ ROW
Concept
Riverfront View Streets are envisioned
as a quiet contrast to the busier,
north-south running streets, and are
intended to provide district residents
easy and direct pedestrian connections
to the Riverfront Promenade. Their
smaller scale lend themselves to
neighborhood residential uses and
neighborhood serving commercial
uses, and the streetscape standards
are intended to reinforce this purpose.
The pedestrian zone shall be allocated
as follows:
1.Furnishing Zone:
Curb: A 6 inch curb shall be
provided. Along Riverfront View
Street sections #1, #6, and #7,
an additional 1.5 feet shall be
provided beyond the curb to
provide a disembarkment zone
between parked vehicles and
street tree wells.
Plant Strip: 4-foot street tree wells
are to be provided.
2.Clear Zone:
See cross sections for various
clear zone requirements for
Riverfront View Streets.
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET #1: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
MILL STREET
furnishing zone clear zone building
frontage zone
curb
zone
2’
plant strip
6’ 5’ 3’
18’ total sidewalk
Attachment 2
639
28 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET CROSS-SECTION #2:
GARDEN (NORTH AND SOUTH OF GARDEN PARK)
5A. Riverfront View Street
3.Building Frontage Zone:
The building frontage zone along
Riverfront View Street section
#1 shall be 3 feet. All remaining
Riverfront View Streets are not
required to have a building
frontage zone.
64’ ROW
roadway
12’ 12’
travel lane travel lane parking
12’ 12’
parking
8’ 8’
sidewalk sidewalk
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET #2: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
GARDEN (NORTH AND SOUTH OF GARDEN PARK)
furnishing zone clear zone
plant strip
12’ total sidewalk
curb
6” 4’ 7’-6”
Attachment 2
640
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 29
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET #3: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
GARDEN STREET PARK
5A. Riverfront View Street
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET CROSS-SECTION #3:
GARDEN STREET PARK
roadway median roadway
10’ 10’
sidewalk travel lane park travel lane parking sidewalk
12’ 80’ 12’
parking
8’ 8’
140’ ROW
furnishing zone clear zone
plant strip
4’ 5’ 6”
10’ total sidewalk
6’’
curb
emergency
access
zone*
8’
emergency
access
zone*
8’
* Note: An 8-foot wide emergency access zone will be provided on the inside edge of Garden Street Park consisting of a one-foot, shallow, sloped mountable curb, grass strip, and permeable paver walkway.
Attachment 2
641
30 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5A. Riverfront View Street
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET #4: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
MARKET (BETWEEN FIFTH STREET AND RIVERFRONT)
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET CROSS-SECTION #4
MARKET (BETWEEN FIFTH STREET AND RIVERFRONT)
roadway
13’
travel lane travel lane
11’ 11’
parking
8’
parking
8’
90’ ROW
sidewalk
13’
sidewalk
clear zone building frontage zone furnishing zone
plant strip
4’ 5’ 3’
15’ total sidewalk
curb
6”
Attachment 2
642
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 31
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5A. Riverfront View Street
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET #5: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
BRIDGE STREET (BETWEEN FIFTH STREET AND
RIVERFRONT)
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET CROSS-SECTION #5
BRIDGE STREET (BETWEEN FIFTH STREET AND RIVERFRONT)
roadway
10’ 10’
parking travel lane travel lane travel lane travel lane parking 8’ 11’’ 11’ 11’ 11’ 8’
80’ ROW
sidewalk sidewalk
clear zone building frontage zone furnishing zone
1’ 6”’ 5’ 3’
10’ total sidewalk
curb
6”
parking and planters
8”
Attachment 2
643
32 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5A. Riverfront View Street
sidewalk roadway sidewalk
17’ 17’
travel
lane travel lane parking bike bike parking
8’ 6’ 11’ 11’ 6’ 8’
84’ ROW
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET CROSS-SECTION #6:
BALLPARK DRIVE (FROM DREVER STREET TO GRAND)
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET #6: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
BALLPARK DRIVE (FROM DREVER STREET TO GRAND)
7’ 6” 3’
furnishing zone clear zone building frontage zone
plant strip
6’
17’ total sidewalk
curb
6”
Attachment 2
644
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 33
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
6’ 6” 3’
furnishing zone clear zone building frontage zone
plant strip
6’
16’ total sidewalk
curb
6”
5A. Riverfront View Street
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET CROSS-SECTION #7:
BALLPARK DRIVE
RIVERFRONT VIEW STREET #7: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
BALLPARK DRIVE
roadway
17’ 17’
parking bike travel lane travel lane bike parking
19.8’ 6’ 12’ 12’ 6’ 8’
97’ 8” ROW
sidewalk sidewalk
Attachment 2
645
34 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
6. Local Street
sidewalk roadway sidewalk
12’ 12’
parking travel lane travel lane parking
3’ 8’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 3’
furnishing zone clear zone
plant strip
4’
12’ total sidewalk
curb optional
building
setback
6” 7’-6” 3’
LOCAL STREET #1: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
CENTRAL STREET
Concept
Local streets are smaller in scale
than other streets in the district. Most
are envisioned as serving primarily
residential uses. Accordingly, the
streetscape design is intended reenforce the quiet, residential nature of these streets. Because it traverses
higher intensity retail areas, however,
buildings along Central Street will
likely be larger in scale, as the street
provides a direct connection from
the ballpark, through the core of
Grand, and on to Garden Park. The
streetscape along Central Street,
therefore, is intended to complement
this higher intensity environment.
The pedestrian zone shall be allocated
as follows:
1.Furnishing Zone:
Curb: A six inch curb shall be
provided.
Plant Strip: Along Local Street #1,
4-foot street tree wells are to be
provided within the furnishing zone
of the sidewalk
Along Local Streets #2 and #3,
vegetated beds with street tees
are to be provided within the
furnishing zone of the sidewalk.
64’ ROW
LOCAL STREET #1:
CENTRAL STREET
2.Clear Zone:
See cross sections for various
clear zone requirements for Local
Streets.
3.Building Frontage Zone:
Local Streets are not required to
have a building frontage zone.
However, an optional 3-foot
building setback may be employed
to create a building frontage zone.
Attachment 2
646
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 35
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Previous material has been removed. Page left intentionally blank.
Attachment 2
647
36 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
sidewalk roadway sidewalk
12’ 12’
parking travel lane travel lane parking
3’ 8’ 12’ 12’ 8’ 3’
LOCAL STREET #3:
CASEY
furnishing zone clear zone
plant strip
4’
12’ total sidewalk
curb optional
building
setback
6” 7’-6” 3’
LOCAL STREET #3: THE PEDESTRIAN REALM
CASEY
6. Local Street
Attachment 2
648
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 37
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
DREVER STREET
BETWEEN BALLPARK DRIVE AND TOWER BRIDGE GATEWAY
DREVER STREET/BALLPARK DRIVE INTERSECTION
BETWEEN SOULE STREET AND BALLPARK DRIVE
Attachment 2
649
38 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Access streets within the Bridge District are multi-modal streets, accommodating pedestrians and bicycles as well as limited vehicular access within the same street space. Accordingly, Access Streets will be designed to enhance and visually communicate the shared nature of these streets.
Access Streets may be one of two types. “Stubbed” Access Streets connect to other public rights-of-way on only one end of the street, terminating in a hammerhead. Riverfront View Universal Streets are Stubbed Access Streets (and are the only permitted type of stubbed streets within the Bridge District). They are intended to provide vehicular access into adjacent parcels while providing bicycle and pedestrian access to the Riverfront Promenade.
“Connecting” Access Streets connect on both ends of the street to other public rights-of-way, thereby providing circulation into and through blocks. Connecting Access Streets include Loop Roads (a type of Riverfront View Universal Street) and Internal Universal Streets.
3.B. Standards for Access Streets
Internal Universal Street Required
Riverfront View Universal Street/Loop Roads
Attachment 2
650
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 39
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
“ZONES OF PRIVACY” ON ACCESS STREETS
Because Access Streets will not have a separated roadway and sidewalk, they must be carefully designed so as to provide a safe travel way for all modes. The streetscape requirements are intended to reinforce the shared nature of these streets through paving, bollards, landscape and street furniture placement. The design elements serve to visually define the 3 zones within the Universal Streets.
These zones are:
• The public zone - Each Universal Street requires a minimum 20 foot public easement, which may shift up to 5 feet in either direction of the centerline. This 20 feet serves as the “public zone,” or the clear zone where the public is encouraged to walk. This zone may also be used by vehicles to access buildings.
• The semi-private zone - This “no structure zone” buffers the public zone from the private zone, and shall be visually defined through differing pavement treatments and/or landscape buffers. The semi-private zone may range from 4 feet to 10 feet. Retail uses fronting Universal Streets may at times use the semi-public zone for outdoor dining activities (though no permanent structures are permitted). This zone may provide a structured “sidewalk” for pedestrians, as well as a landscape strip to separate the sidewalk area from the public zone, where cars may be present. Street trees are required in Riverfront View Universal Streets, and shall be planted within this semi-private zone.
• The private zone - The private zone is that area immediately adjacent to the building frontage. the private zone may range from 3 feet to 16 feet (to accommodate outdoor dining). Design elements are intended to visually communicate the private nature of this area. Depending on the building frontage type, certain building elements (such as porches, stoops, or terraces) may project into the private zone, and balconies may project over it (see a.3 for specifics). See “Building Design Standards” p.65 for allowable building frontage types.
private zone semi-private zone public zone semi-private zone private zone public access easement
20’
no structure zone building projections allowed building projections allowed Attachment 2
651
40 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Riverfront View Universal Streets are essentially extensions of the public Riverfront View Streets through private properties. They are intended to serve primarily as pedestrian and bicycle linkages to the Riverfront Promenade while also allowing emergency vehicular access. Riverfront View Universal streets are typically 60-foot private streets, with a 20-foot public easement along the centerline. Active uses such as individual residential front doors, cafes, and neighborhood retail uses are invited to line them. The preservation of visual connectivity and ease of pedestrian / bicycle access from within the district to the Riverfront Promenade and its open space will be key design principles in the consideration of development proposed along these streets. Riverfront View Universal Streets accommodate two-way traffic, and terminate at the Promenade.
In addition to the mapped Riverfront View Universal Streets at right, blocks between Riverfront and the waterfront may provide one additional Riverfront View Universal Street along each block face. The exact location of these additional streets within the block may be determined by the property owner. Additional Riverfront View Universal Streets are not required to connect to the promenade or to other Riverfront View Universal Streets. If they do not connect, they may be entirely private, with an optional public access easement. Additional Riverfront View Universal Streets may be dedicated to the public, provided that they connect to the waterfront and they comply with City standards.
“STUBBED” ACCESS STREETS
Riverfront View Universal Street
Attachment 2
652
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 41
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5B. Riverfront View Universal Street
Vehicular Circulation on Riverfront
View Universal Streets
When Riverfront View Universal Streets
(which are curbless, by definition)
are used to provide vehicular access
to buildings or parcels, a mid-block
“hammerhead” must be provided no
further than two-thirds the distance
through the block (or 250 feet,
whichever is shorter), as measured
from Riverfront, to prevent vehicles
from accessing the Waterfront
Promenade. The hammerhead may
utilize removable bollards or landscape
features to serve as a barrier
preventing non-emergency vehicles
from accessing the Promenade. While
the Universal Street shall continue
through to the Waterfront Promenade,
it shall be dedicated to pedestrians
only for the remaining distance.
pedestrian/
bike only bollards and/
or landscaping
to prevent
non-emergency
vehicle access
see this section for
Riverfront View Universal
Street cross-section
options
vehicular
access to
buildings/
parcels
Riverfront Promenade
Attachment 2
653
42 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Riverfront View Universal Street
Concept
Riverfront View Universal Streets
are intended to accommodate
pedestrians and bicycles as well as
provide vehicular access to individual
buildings within the same street
space. The streetscape requirements
are intended to reinforce the shared
nature of these streets through paving,
bollards, landscaping. While Riverfront
View Universal Streets are intended
to provide pedestrian access to the
Riverfront Promenade, they may
not provide vehicular access to the
Waterfront, and must culminate in
a “hammerhead.” (See page 40 for
details).
The public zone, semi-private zone,
and private zones shall be allocated as
follows:
1. The public zone:
A 20 foot public easement is
required. This 20 feet serves as
the “public zone” of the street. The
required 20 feet may shift 5 feet
in either direction off of the ROW
centerline.
2. The semi-private zone:
Within Riverfront View Universal
Streets #1 (50 feet) and #2
(60 feet), the semi-private zone
shall measure at least 10 feet in
width. This allows for a structured
“sidewalk” for pedestrians, as well
as a landscape strip to separate
the sidewalk area from the public
zone, where cars may be present.
Outdoor dining may at times pill
out into the semi-private zone.
Street trees are required, and shall
be planted within this semi-private
zone.
5B. Riverfront View Universal Street
RIVERFRONT VIEW UNIVERSAL STREET #1:
BALLPARK U-STREET (EAST OF RIVERFRONT)
private semi-private zone public zone semi-private zone zone outdoor
use /bldg
frontage
area
5’
public access easement
6’ 4’ 20’ 4’ 6’
walkway landscape landscape walkway
private
zone
outdoor
use /bldg
frontage
area
5’
50’
Attachment 2
654
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 43
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5B. Riverfront View Universal Street
3. The private zone:
Depending on the building
frontage type, certain building
elements (such as porches,
stoops, or terraces) may project
into the private zone, and
balconies may project over it (see
a.3 for specifics). See “Building
Design Standards” p.65 for
allowable building frontage types.
Outdoor dining, landscaping,
and other elements permitted/
encouraged within the building
frontage zone of the sidewalk may
occur within the private zone of the
Universal Street.
In Riverfront View Universal Street
#1 (50 feet), the Private Zone may
be no greater than 5 feet. This is
intended to allow for adequate
space to provide a pedestrian
walkway and street trees in the
semi-private zone.
In order to maximize safety by
ensuring that there are adequate
“eyes” on the street, primary
building entrances must front
Riverfront View Universal Streets.
When residential uses are located
along Riverfront View Universal
Streets, primary living spaces (i.e.,
active living areas) shall be located
along the street. See Section 3
(“Building Frontages”) for other
building frontage requirements.
private zone semi-private zone public zone semi-private zone private zone outdoor use area
10’
public access easement
20’
terrace/porch/stoop
6’ 10’
landscape
4’
landscape
6’
walkway
4’
walkway
private zone semi-private zone public zone semi-private zone private zone 10’
public access easement
20’
terrace/porch/stoop
10’
terrace/porch/stoop landscape landscape
10’ 10’
OPTIONS FOR RIVERFRONT VIEW UNIVERSAL STREET #2:
STATE, MARKET, BRIDGE, GARDEN, AND MILL U-STREETS (6O’ RIGHT-OF-WAY) Attachment 2
655
44 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5B. Riverfront View Universal Street
private zone semi-private zone public zone semi-private zone private zone walkway/potential
outdoor use area
10’
public access easement
6’ 4’ 20’ 4’ 10’
walkway landscape landscape walkway
6’
walkway/potential
outdoor use area
RIVERFRONT VIEW UNIVERSAL STREET #3:
BALLPARK U-STREET WITH BALLPARK SITE
60’
private zone semi-private zone public zone semi-private zone private zone walkway/potential
outdoor use area
10’
public access easement
6’ 4’ 20’ 4’ 10’
walkway landscape landscape walkway
6’
walkway/potential
outdoor use area
RIVERFRONT VIEW UNIVERSAL STREET #3:
BALLPARK U-STREET WITH DEVELOPMENT ON BALLPARK SITE
60’
potential
development
site
Attachment 2
656
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 45
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5B. Riverfront View Universal Street
Riverfront Plaza
private/semi-private zone public zone plaza
walkway
15’ 21’ 3”
outdoor use area
RIVERFRONT PLAZA
Attachment 2
657
46 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
CONNECTING ACCESS STREETS
“Connecting” Access Streets connect on both ends of the street to other public rights-of-way, thereby providing circulation into and through blocks. Connecting Access Streets may be one of two types:
Loop Roads are a subtype of Riverfront View Universal Streets, and provide circulation between Riverfront and the Waterfront Promenade. Like other Riverfront View Universal Streets, Loop roads are 60-foot private streets, with a 20-foot public easement along the centerline. While Riverfront View Universal Streets accommodate two-way traffic and terminate at the Promenade, Loop Roads are one-way streets. Loop Roads originate at Riverfront, travel parallel to the Waterfront Promenade, and eventually loop back to Riverfront. The intent of these loop roads is to provide one-way vehicular access to and from individual buildings along the waterfront, as well as to provide access to the waterfront itself. Loop roads shall not connect to Riverfront Plaza or to the Ballpark Drive/Tower Bridge Universal Street, nor may they connect to more than two Riverfront View Universal Streets.
Internal Universal Streets, required within the central blocks of the Bridge District, are intended to provide connections through and into these large blocks (the exact location of Internal Universal Streets with these blocks may be determined by the property owner). Internal Universal Streets must connect to a mini mum of two different public rights’-of-way. Vehicular parking and service access to the interiors of blocks and buildings should be accessed off of these streets. Lots fronting Internal Universal Streets must provide a minimum of 50% of building frontage along the Universal Street (see Section 4 “Building Design Standards”).
Internal Universal Streets are multi-modal, and in addition to providing vehicular and service access to buildings, they should provide easy pedestrian and bicycle access between the public streets that they connect. The continuation of public street qualities (such as sidewalk paving materials) will be an important consideration of development proposed along these streets.
Internal Universal Street Required
Riverfront View Universal Street/Loop Roads
Attachment 2
658
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 47
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5C. Loop Roads (east/west)
Concept
Loop Roads are a subtype of Riverfront
View Universal Streets, and provide
circulation between Riverfront and
the Waterfront Promenade. Like
other Riverfront View Universal
Streets, Loop roads are 60-foot
private streets, with a 20-foot public
easement along the centerline,
originating at Riverfront, travelling
parallel to the Waterfront Promenade,
and eventually looping back to
Riverfront. The intent of these loop
roads is to provide vehicular access
to and from individual buildings along
the waterfront, as well as providing
access to the waterfront itself. These
roads are designed to be interesting
and inviting to pedestrians and offer a
connection to the waterfront.
Loop roads shall not connect to
Riverfront Plaza or to the Ballpark
Drive/Tower Bridge Universal Street,
nor may they connect to more than
two Riverfront View Universal Streets.
1. The public zone:
A 20 foot public easement is
required. This 20 feet serves as
the “public zone” of the street.
The required 20 feet may shift 5
feet in either direction off of the
ROW centerline. 8 feet must be
dedicated to on-street parking,
and 12 feet must be dedicated to
shared roadway space.
2. The semi-private zone:
The semi-private zone shall
measure at least 12 feet in
width. This allows for a structured
“sidewalk” for pedestrians, as well
as a landscape strip to separate
the sidewalk area from the public
zone, where cars may be present.
Outdoor dining may at times pill
out into the semi-private zone.
Street trees are required, and shall
be planted within this semi-private
zone.
3. The private zone
Buildings must be set back a
minimum of 3 feet to provide for a
building frontage zone.
LOOP ROAD CROSS SECTION
PERPENDICULAR TO WATERFRONT
semi-private zone public zone semi-private zone
public access easement
4’ 12’ 4’
landscape landscape
6’’
walkway
6’
walkway
8’
parking shared roadway
10’
private zone
60’
private zone
outdoor use area
10’
terrace/porch/
stoop
Attachment 2
659
48 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5C. Loop Roads (north/south)
The cross sections below illustrate two
options for how loop roads (and their
adjoining sidewalks) may be designed
in areas where they are adjacent to
the Waterfront Promenade. A 58-foot
setback is required from the crest line,
in which no structures, shrubs, or trees
may be placed. Landscaping in this
area may be grasses only.
crest line
loop road
12’ 13’
sidewalk and
plant strip
no build zone (no structures, shrubs, or trees)
58’ setback
promenade walkway
20’
furnishing
strip
5 utility corridor with
swale and parking
with pervious pavers
10’
PROMENADE LOOP ROAD CROSS SECTION #1:
PARALLEL TO WATERFRONT
Attachment 2
660
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 49
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
7. Internal Universal Street
Internal Universal Streets are required within the central blocks of the Bridge District, and are intended to provide connections through and into large blocks, providing vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle access to the interiors of blocks within the same street space. The exact location of Internal Universal Streets within these blocks may be determined by the property owner. However, Internal Universal Streets should align with other Internal Universal Streets in order to create a legible, connected pedestrian and vehicular system. Driveways and parking areas should preferably be accessed off of these streets, and building service functions are encouraged to occur along Internal Universal Streets rather than other, higher function streets.
Because the intent of these streets is to increase connectivity within the central blocks, Internal Universal Streets must connect to a minimum of two public rightsof-way. Skywalks may span across an Internal Universal Street (for example, to connect a parking garage with a building).
Lots fronting Internal Universal Streets must provide a minimum of 50% of building frontage along the Universal Street (see Section 4 “Building Design Standards”). In instances where buildings do front Internal Universal Streets, retail uses (such as outdoor dining) may spill out onto these streets. The streetscape requirements will reinforce the shared nature of these streets through paving and curb treatments.
INTERNAL UNIVERSAL STREETS ARE ENCOURAGED TO
ALIGN WITH OTHER INTERNAL UNIVERSAL STREETS
IN ORDER TO CREATE A LEGIBLE, CONNECTED
PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR SYSTEM.
Attachment 2
661
50 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
7. Internal Universal Street
INTERNAL UNIVERSAL STREET WITH RETAIL FRONTAGE (45’ RIGHT-OF-WAY) public zone semi-private zone semi-private zone
outdoor
use /bldg
frontage
area
2’-5’
public access easement
7’6”-10’ 20’ 7’6”-10’
walkway/
landscape/
service pulloff
private
zone
outdoor
use /bldg
frontage
area
2’-5’
private
zone
walkway/
landscape/
service pulloff
INTERNAL UNIVERSAL STREET WITH SERVICE (45’ RIGHT-OF-WAY) Internal Universal Street Concept
Internal Universal Streets are required
in the core blocks of the Bridge
District, as indicated by the map
above, and are intended to break up
large blocks and provide vehicular
and pedestrian/bicycle access to and
through the interiors of blocks within
the same street space. Because they
are utilitarian in nature, driveways
and parking areas should preferably
be accessed off of these streets,
and building service functions are
encouraged to occur along Internal
Universal Streets rather than other,
higher function streets.
The exact location of the Internal
Universal Street within the block may
be determined by the property owner
(though they are encouraged to align
with other Internal Universal Streets
in order to create a legible, connected
pedestrian and vehicular system.) The
streetscape requirements are intended
to reinforce the shared nature of these
streets through paving and landscaping
treatments.
The public zone, semi-private zone,
and private zones shall be allocated as
follows:
public zone semi-private zone semi-private zone
outdoor
use /bldg
frontage
area
2’-5’
public access easement
7’6”-10’ 20’ 7’6”-10’
walkway/
landscape/
service pulloff
private
zone
outdoor
use /bldg
frontage
area
2’-5’
private
zone
walkway/
landscape/
service pulloff
Attachment 2
662
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 51
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
7. Internal Universal Street
1. The public zone:
A 20 foot public easement is
required. This 20 feet serves as
the “public zone” of the street. The
required 20 feet may shift 5 feet
in either direction off of the ROW
centerline.
2. The semi-private zone:
The semi-private zone shall
measure at least 8 feet and no
more than 10 feet in width. This
allows for a service pulloff area,
and creates opportunities for
landscaping and a structured
“sidewalk” area for pedestrians.
Outdoor dining and other retail
activities may at times extend
into this semi-private zone. Street
lighting may be provided in this
zone or in the private zone. Other
street furniture (such as benches
and trashcans), must be provided
in this semi-private zone.
3. The private zone:
The private zone shall measure
at least 2 feet and no more than
5 feet in width. This “building
frontage zone” shall be visually
distinct from the semi-private
zone. This may be accomplished
through the use of landscaping or
hardscaping. Street lighting may
be provided in this zone or in the
semi-private zone.
Depending on the building
frontage type, certain building
elements such as porches, stoops,
awnings, canopies, and balconies
may project into the private zone.
Outdoor dining and other retail
activities may at times occupy this
private zone.
Attachment 2
663
52 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
1. PLANT STRIP TREATMENT
Within the Bridge District, one of four plant strip treatments may apply to the furnishing zone of the sidewalk, as follows:
1.Tree grates
To re-enforce the “urban” character of certain, higher-intensity streets, trees within the plant strip are to be contained within either 4X4 or 6X6 tree wells with cast iron grate coverings (see image at right). Tree grates are particularly appropriate for those streets intended to accommodate high volumes of pedestrian traffic and on-street parking, or where sidewalk width is limited, as they maximize the overall, walkable surface area of the sidewalk. Where streetscape standards call for 4-foot tree grates, the tree should be an ornamental species suited to 4-foot well sizes.
2.Stormwater planter
Because they occupy more space within the sidewalk, this plant strip treatment is appropriate for less intense street types. Stormwater planters are landscaped reservoirs used to collect, filter, and infiltrate stormwater run-off from the street. This system allows pollutants to settle and filter out as the water percolates through the planter soil and infiltrates into the ground. While stormwater planters help to achieve sustainability goals, they simultaneously serve as a visual amenity within the streetscape.
Stormwater planters may be approximately 15 to 28 feet in length, thereby allowing for two street within each planter. Approximately 4 - 6 linear feet shall be provided between stormwater planters to allow for pedestrian passage between the sidewalk and the curb zone alongside on-street parking spaces.
CONSTRUCTED STORMWATER PLANTERS
MANAGE RUN-OFF WHILE PROVIDING A VISUAL
AMENITY WITHIN THE STREETSCAPE
EXAMPLE OF CAST IRON STREET TREE WELLS.
3.C. General Streetscape Standards
slotted curbs allow stormwater runnoff from the street
surface to flow into planter beds, where water
is retained and overflow passes to an
undergrand storage bladder
stormwater planters
DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATES HOW STORMWATER FLOWS FROM THE
STREET INTO PLANTERS VIA SLOTTED CURBS. WATER PERCOLATES
NATURALLY INTO THE GROUND, AND OVERFLOW PASSES TO AN
UNDERGROUND STORAGE BLADDER
Attachment 2
664
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 53
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Drought-tolerant, native ground cover and shrubs shall be provided within stormwater planters. Plant materials should be chosen for seasonal color variety as well as texture and visual interest.
The following matrix outlines the plant strip treatment to be used for each street type within the district. Unless otherwise noted, all multiples of a particular street type (i.e., Riverfront #1, Riverfront #2) will have the plant strip treatment indicated for the larger street type. Note that two plant strip treatment options exist for Riverfront View Streets, Riverfront View Universal Streets, and Internal Universal Streets. While Internal Universal Streets are not required to provide street trees, they may choose to do so through either of the two plant strip options shown.
Plant strip treatment by street type
4’ tree grates
Stormwater
planter (see street
cross section for
dimensions)
6’ tree grates or
stormwater planter
1. Riverfront
Retail Street X
2. Riverfront
Transition X
3. Grand X
4. Fifth Street X
5a. Riverfront View
Street X X
Mill X
Ballpark X
Bridge Bridge is an exception, and will provide tree
planters within the on-street parking area.
6. Local Street X
5b. Riverfront View
Universal Street X X
7. Internal
Universal Street X X
EXAMPLES OF STORMWATER PLANTERS AS
APPLIED TO UNIVERSAL STREETS.
Attachment 2
665
54 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Street tree species and spacing
Street trees must be chosen from the City of West Sacramento Master Tree List.
Choice of street tree species and underplantings should be part of an overall landscape plan for the district. Within that plan, it is recommended that particular street tree species be chosen for particular street types in order to give each street type within the hierarchy its own unique personality and identity. Tree species should vary district-wide in order to ensure variety and the long-term health of trees within the district, but should ideally be a consistent specie along the axis of each given street type.
They shall be spaced a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 40 feet on center.
Smaller species should be spaced more closely, and larger species may be more widely spaced. Street trees shall be placed so that they do not obstruct streetlights and traffic control devices (signs and signals). Canopies must grow a minimum of 8 feet above the sidewalk level in order to prevent street trees from obstructing pedestrian traffic and views to building signage.
Landscape Plantings in Universal Streets
Within Riverfront View Universal Streets, landscaping shall be used to visually and physically differentiate the three “zones of privacy” (public, semi-private, and private). This required landscaping may take the form of (but is not limited to) street trees (in tree wells or stormwater planters), vegetated beds, and/or planters.
The use of stormwater planters on universal streets is highly encouraged. See photographs on page 52 for examples of how stormwater planters may be applied to Universal Streets.
Street trees are required in Riverfront View Universal Streets. private zone semi-private zone public zone semi-private zone private zone
ALONG RIVERFRONT VIEW UNIVERSAL
STREETS, LANDSCAPING SHALL BE USED TO
DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE THREE ZONES.
THIS REQUIRED LANDSCAPING MAY TAKE THE
FORM OF STREET TREES (IN TREE WELLS OR
STORMWATER PLANTERS), VEGETATED BEDS,
PLANTERS, ETC.
Attachment 2
666
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 55
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
2. MATERIALS
The standards in this section are intended to ensure that high quality materials are used within the streetscape in a manner that enhances the pedestrian experience and creates a visually rich and cohesive public realm.
Along certain streets, “special” paving materials may be used within the street and/or the sidewalk to reinforce that street’s unique sense of place and importance within the district. In addition to these aesthetic functions, special pavers may be used within certain high-traffic pedestrian streets as traffic calming devices.
Street paving materials
Streets within the Bridge District will provide one of two paving conditions. Most streets will provide uniform surface asphalt paving within the travel lanes and on-street parking areas. In contrast, higher order streets will provide textured pavers within the roadway. This paving treatment is intended to re-enforce the “special” nature of these streets. This textured treatment is especially appropriate for Riverfront and Grand, where a high degree of pedestrian traffic is expected.
The texture within the roadway will slow traffic along these streets, creating a safer environment for pedestrians and encouraging activity along the sidewalk.
To maintain a more pedestrian-friendly environment and discourage speeding, traffic calming features that are both aesthetically pleasing and functional will be incorporated into the design of Riverfront Retail Street. These features may include, but are not limited to textured and/or colored pavements, chokers, chicanes, and raised crosswalks and bulbouts. These features would accommodate planned transit and streetcar facilities. Through traffic would be encouraged to use parallel streets (i.e., Fifth Street, Central), which are designed to accommodate higher traffic volumes.
Where pavers are used within the street, permeable paver units of a contrasting material, pattern, or color shall be used within the on-street parking area and center turn lane (in the case of Riverfront) in order to create a visual contrast between these areas and the travel lanes. These permeable pavers are also intended to help manage stormwater runoff.
Note: While irregular surfaces are required for certain street travel lanes, all pedestrian paths - sidewalk clear zones and crosswalks - must be smooth surfaced to facilitate ADA compliant pedestrian access. “SPECIAL” PAVING CAN HELP TO VISUALLY
DISTINGUISH KEY STREETS WITHIN THE
PLANNING AREA, AND CAN SERVE AS A
TRAFFIC-CALMING DEVICE. PERMEABLE
PAVERS (BOTTOM) ACCOMPLISHES THESE
GOALS WHILE HELPING TO MANAGE
STORMWATER RUNOFF
TEXTURED AND/OR COLORED CROSSWALKS (ABOVE)
AND RAISED CROSSWALKS (ABOVE RIGHT) INCREASE
VISIBILITY AND ENCOURAGE DRIVERS TO SLOW DOWN
PLANTED CHICANES (ABOVE) AND BULBOUTS/CHOKERS
(ABOVE RIGHT) VISUALLY NARROW THE ROADWAY AND
REQUIRE DRIVERS TO MOVE MORE SLOWLY
Attachment 2
667
56 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
The matrix below outlines the street paving materials appropriate to each street type. See page 68 for guidance on using special materials within intersections in key locations to create visual interest.
Asphalt
Special pavers in the travel
lane (with pavers of a different
pattern/material/color in onstreet parking areas and center turn lanes. Special pavers are
encouraged to be permeable)
Traffic calming features required
(including textured and/
or colored pavers, chokers,
chicanes, and raised crosswalks
and bulbouts)
1. Riverfront Retail
Street X X
2. Riverfront
Transition X X
3. Grand X
4. Fifth Street X
5a. Riverfront View
Street X
6. Local Street X
5b. Riverfront View
Universal Street see “Materials in Universal Streets”
7. Internal Universal
Street see “Materials in Universal Streets”
Paving Materials by Street Type
Attachment 2
668
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 57
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Curb materials
Streets within the Bridge District will provide a six inch wide curb comprised of cast-in-place concrete. Intersections noted as “Enhanced Intersection Treatments” in Section 5. “Corners and Crossings” will provide granite curbs within the intersection (see page 68).
In order to place greater emphasis on the central importance of Grand as the principal “spine” connecting West Sacramento to the waterfront, Grand between Fifth Street and Riverfront is to be designed as a “curbless” street, whereby the travel lanes and the sidewalks are near the same grade. This treatment will emphasize the pedestrian-oriented nature of Grand as it approaches Riverfront.
Along this cross section, a sloped, shallow, mountable one-foot wide “curb” will be provided, which will be visually consistent with the one-foot curb provided along the northern portions of Grand.
In slight contrast to this sloped curb condition along Grand, all Universal Streets within the Bridge District will be entirely curbless, with no grade-separated sidewalk and roadway. Cars, bikes, and pedestrians will share the same roadway space. See page 53 and page 58 for standards relating to the use of landscape plantings and materials to differentiate the three “zones” of these curbless Universal Streets (see page 38 for description of “zones”).
Attachment 2
669
58 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Sidewalk paving pattern and materials
CONCRETE IS THE STANDARD SIDEWALK
TREATMENT THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT.
A LARGER PATTERN IN THE CLEAR ZONE
BORDERED BY A SMALLER PATTERN IN THE
BUILDING FRONTAGE AND FURNISHING ZONES
HELPS TO GIVE DEFINITION AND CREATE
VISUAL INTEREST
ALONG RIVERFRONT AND GRAND, SPECIAL
PERMEABLE PAVERS SHALL BE USED WITHIN
THE FURNISHING ZONE TO HELP VISUALLY
DISTINGUISH THESE TWO IMPORTANT STREETS.
THESE PERMEABLE PAVERS WILL ALSO HELP TO
MINIMIZE STORMWATER RUNOFF
To provide definition to the pedestrian realm, sidewalk paving materials and patterns shall correspond to the three zones of the sidewalk. Along all streets in the district, the clear zone of the sidewalk shall be comprised of light surface, scored or stamped concrete (with smooth joints). This ensures that sidewalks are accessible for all users. The building frontage and furnishing zones of the sidewalk shall utilize the same scored or stamped concrete, but with a smaller pattern. This differentiation through pattern helps to define the clear zone, and creates visual interest along the sidewalk.
Along higher-order streets, special permeable pavers are encouraged in the furnishing zone to create a more unique sense of place along these important streets and to help manage stormwater runoff.
The matrix below outlines the sidewalk paving materials and pattern appropriate to each street type.
Standard treatment: Scored or
stamped concrete sidewalks,
with a smaller stamping pattern
in the building frontage and
furnishing zones
“Special” treatment: Scored or
stamped concrete treatment,
with permeable pavers in the
furnishing zone
1. Riverfront
Retail Street X
2. Riverfront
Road Transition X
3. Grand
X
4. Fifth Street X
5a. Riverfront
View Street X
6. Local Street
X
Sidewalk Paving Treatment by Street Type
Attachment 2
670
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 59
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Materials in Universal Streets
Within Universal Streets, differentiation in the color and pattern of paving materials shall be used to visually differentiate the three “zones of privacy” (public, semi-private, and private). Permeable pavers are encouraged to be used to the greatest extent possible in all zones of the street. Within the public zone, paver units capable of carrying heavier loads should be used on a more substantial subgrade base.
private zone semi-private zone public zone semi-private zone private zone
ALONG RIVERFRONT VIEW UNIVERSAL
STREETS, CONTRASTING MATERIALS SHALL BE
USED TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE THREE
ZONES.
Attachment 2
671
60 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
3. FURNISHINGS AND UTILITIES
All street furniture, including benches, trashcans, bicycle racks, lighting, newspaper boxes, water fountains, etc, must be located within the furnishing zone of the sidewalk. Additionally, business signage, such as A-frame or sandwich boards, must also be located within the furnishing zone. At no time may any of these items block the clear zone of the sidewalk.
Any service panels to underground utilities must also be located within the furnishing zone. Building utility items such as utility boxes, meters, and backflow preventers must be located entirely within the building in building service areas or in underground vaults.
furnishing zone
4-9 feet
building frontage zone
3-10 feet
clear zone
5-15 feet
Attachment 2
672
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 61
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Public realm furnishings along “Streets of Civic Significance” Within the Bridge District, two streets are of special significance, and as such, will warrant special public realm furnishings to highlight their special position within the street hierarchy.
Grand serves as the gateway into the district, linking existing civic uses west of the district to the West Sacramento Riverfront. The widest street in the district, it provides a ceremonial, tree-lined procession to the river. Ballpark is laid out in its axial alignment in order to frame and preserve views to Tower Bridge, which helps to give the Bridge District its unique sense of place.
Special, place-making furnishings should be provided within the public realm along both of these streets. These may include public art, fountains or other water features, special signage, and/or special lighting.
Street of Civic Significance
FOUNTAINS AND WATER FEATURES
PUBLIC ART
SPECIAL SIGNAGE
Attachment 2
673
62 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Access standards are intended to guide the provision of curbcuts and driveways along each street type. While curb cuts to access driveways, parking areas, and/ or building service areas may be permitted on certain street types, other, higher order street types may not allow for curb cuts. These standards are intended to re-enforce the pedestrian nature of streets by minimizing the visual impact that surface parking and access areas have on the building frontages along the sidewalk, and by reducing potential “conflict zones” where cars traverse across the pedestrian zone. Note that each of the frontage types in “Section 3. Building Design Standards” prohibits surface parking between the building facade and the property line/build-to line (though handicapped accessible parking may be permitted). See also Section 3 for minimum building facade requirements along the build-to line.
Likewise, standards relating to building services (garbage and recycling collection) are intended to ensure that the pedestrian nature of streets within the district is preserved by minimizing the negative aesthetic impact that these building functions can have on the pedestrian zone.
Condition 1: Curb cuts to
access driveways, parking,
and/or building service
areas are not permitted.
Curb cuts are permitted to
provide access to Universal
Streets.
Condition 2: A maximum of
one curb cut is permitted
per block face to access
driveways, parking, and/
or building service areas.
Curb cuts may be no closer
than 50 feet to a street
intersection
Condition 3: Curb cuts are
permitted, but must be
spaced a minimum of XX
feet apart. Curb cuts may be
no closer than 50 feet to a
street intersection.
1. Riverfront
Retail Street X
2. Riverfront
Road Transition X
3. Grand
X
4. Fifth
Street X
5a. Riverfront
View Street X
6. Local
Street X
Access standards for through streets
The following matrix summarizes curb cut standards for through streets within the Bridge District.
4. ACCESS AND SERVICE (CURB CUTS)
* Where Riverfront View Streets intersect with Fifth Street to create a 3-way intersection, adjacent parcels must locate their access at the intersection so as to create a 4-way intersection.
*
Attachment 2
674
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 63
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Note that where Universal Streets are required, and along Riverfront Retail Street and Grand (where curb cuts are prohibited), all vehicular access to adjacent buildings or parcels (including access to parking areas and/or service bays) must occur off of a Universal Street, and may not occur off of any other, higher order street.
Where access is not required to be off of Universal Streets, and where curb cuts are permitted, access should be built to existing City standards.
Parking access permitted Parking access NOT permitted
1. Riverfront Retail
Street X
2. Riverfront
Road Transition
Riverfront Road Transition
North X
Riverfront Road Transition
South X
3. Grand
Segment #1
(Tower Bridge Gateway to
Ballpark)
X
Segment #2
(Ballpark to Fifth Street) X
Segment #3
(Fifth Street to Riverfront) X
4. Fifth Street X
5a. Riverfront View
Street X
6. Local Street X
7. Internal Universal
Street X
Parking access
The following matrix summarizes those streets within the street heirarchy from which on-site parking may be accessed. Note that higher order streets will typically not permit parking access.
Attachment 2
675
64 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Access standards for Access Streets
1.Riverfront View Universal Streets
In addition to serving as pedestrian and bicycle connections to the Riverfront Promenade, Riverfront View Universal Streets are designed to accommodate vehicles needing access into individual buildings fronting these streets. Driveways leading to parking areas and/or service bays may be directly accessed off of Universal Streets. (However, service areas must be internal to buildings, and parking areas may not be visible from any street)
The map at right illustrates the determined location of Riverfront View Universal Streets within the Bridge District (though the exact location of Loop Roads is flexible). In addition to these mapped Riverfront View Universal Streets, blocks between Riverfront and the waterfront may provide one additional Riverfront View Universal Street to provide additional access. The exact location of these additional streets within the block may be determined by the property owner.
Where Universal Streets are required, and along Riverfront Retail Street and Grand (where curb cuts are prohibited), all vehicular access to adjacent buildings or parcels (including access to parking areas and/or service bays) must occur off of a Universal Street, and may not occur off of any other, higher order street.
2.Internal Universal Street
In addition to serving as pedestrian and bicycle connections within blocks, Internal Universal Streets are designed to accommodate vehicles needing access into individual buildings. Driveways leading to parking areas and/ or service bays are encouraged to be accessed off of Internal Universal Streets, rather than other, higher order streets. Parking areas may be visible from Internal Universal Streets.
Internal Universal Streets are required in the core blocks (as shown at right). However, Internal Universal Streets are permitted in other neighborhoods of the Bridge District provided that they comply with the standards outlined in this document.
Where Universal Streets are required, and along Riverfront Retail Street and Grand (where curb cuts are prohibited), all vehicular access to adjacent buildings or parcels (including access to parking areas and/or service bays) must occur off of a Universal Street, and may not occur off of any other, higher order street.
Internal Universal Street Required
Riverfront View Universal Street/Loop Roads
Attachment 2
676
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 65
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Building service standards
1.Municipal Services
All garbage and recycling storage and collection within the Bridge District must occur internally to the building (within internal service bays). Garbage and recycling containers are not permitted to be stored or placed along any street or sidewalk in the district.
Garbage and recycling collection routes shall take place along Internal Universal Streets, rather than other, higher order streets. These municipal building services are prohibited from occurring along higher-order, pedestrian-oriented streets within the district, and service bays are not permitted to front these streets. Garbage and recycling collection and other building services are permitted along private driveways.
The matrix below indicates where garbage and recycling collection services are permitted within the district.
Municipal services (and
service bays) not permitted
Municipal services (and
service bays) permitted
1. Riverfront
Retail Street X
2. Riverfront
Road Transition X
3. Grand X
4. Fifth
Street X
5. Riverfront
View Street X
6. Local
Street X
7. Internal
Universal Street
X
(encouraged)
BUILDING SERVICES SHALL OCCUR
INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING, AND SHALL
MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE PEDESTRIAN
REALM
2.Deliveries
Building deliveries shall occur internally to the building within internal service bays (see image above). Building deliveries may occur within the street, provided that they are scheduled to occur at “off-peak” hours, such as early in the morning when delivery vehicles are less likely to impede upon pedestrian and automobile traffic. Deliveries are highly encouraged to take place within Internal Universal Streets, rather than other, higher order streets. Postal and courier delivery vehicles may park along any street when delivering packages.
Attachment 2
677
66 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
3.Loading Zones
Official timed loading zones will be established and enforced within the onstreet parking area of the street. On-street loading and deliveries may occur within these zones between the hours of 7 am and 11 a.m. In addition to other areas within the district, loading zones will be located along Riverfront Retail Street.
Attachment 2
678
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 67
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
5. CORNERS AND CROSSINGS
The intent of standards relating to corners and pedestrian crossings is to ensure a high level of pedestrian safety is provided throughout the Bridge District.
Corners
Bulbouts are an extension of the sidewalk into the area of the roadway normally dedicated to on-street parking. Bulbouts significantly increase pedestrian safety by minimizing the roadway distance that pedestrians must cross (thereby minimizing their exposure to possible conflicts with vehicles). Additionally, bulbouts increase the overall visibility of pedestrians to passing cars by removing on-street parking near the intersection. Bulbouts bring pedestrians waiting to cross the street in front of on-street parking, thereby allowing drivers to see them around parked cars while also allowing pedestrians to more easily see moving vehicles.
1.Sidewalk Bulbouts at Intersections
Sidewalk bulbouts are highly encouraged at all intersections where onstreet parking is provided throughout the district.
2.Bulbouts at Streetcar Stops
Where a streetcar stop is planned, sidewalk bulbouts serve a dual function.
While enhancing pedestrian crossing safety as described above, bulbouts may be extended linearly to provide for a raised, streetcar station area.
The linear distance and height of the bulbout shall correspond with the dimensions of the streetcar.
SIDEWALK BULBOUTS AT INTERSECTIONS
INCREASE VISIBILITY OF PEDESTRIANS
AROUND PARKED CARS AND MINIMIZE
CROSSING DISTANCES
WHERE STREETCAR STOPS ARE PLANNED,
SIDEWALK BULBOUTS ARE EXTENDED
LINEARLY ACCORDING TO THE LENGTH OF THE
STREETCAR
Attachment 2
679
68 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
3.Bulbouts at Universal Streets
Where Universal Streets meet and intersect with vehicular streets, bulbouts shall be provided on both sides of the intersecting street to facilitate pedestrian crossings. Bulbouts must meet ADA requirements.
To further calm traffic at these pedestrian bulbouts, a raised crossing may also be provided, whereby the street inclines slightly to meet the curb, providing a “raised table” at the crossing.
WHERE UNIVERSAL STREETS INTERSECT
OTHER STREETS, BULBOUTS MUST
BE PROVIDED ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE INTERSECTING STREET TO
FACILITATE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING.
THE IMAGE ABOVE LEFT ILLUSTRATES
THIS BULBOUT CONDITION WHERE
A UNIVERSAL STREET ALIGNS WITH
ANOTHER UNIVERSAL STREET (THIS
CURRENTLY IS MAPPED TO OCCUR
ONLY AT STATE STREET, THOUGH
INTERNAL UNIVERSAL STREETS ARE
ALSO ENCOURAGED TO ALIGN WITH
ONE ANOTHER). THE IMAGE BELOW
LEFT ILLUSTRATES A BULBOUT WHERE A
UNIVERSAL STREET DOES NOT CONNECT
WITH ANOTHER UNIVERSAL STREET.
BULBOUTS WHERE UNIVERSAL STREETS MEET
VEHICULAR STREETS FACILITATE PEDESTRIAN
CROSSINGS AND INCREASE VISIBILITY
Attachment 2
680
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 69
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Pedestrian Crossings
In order to maximize pedestrian safety and visibility, a well-marked crosswalk shall be provided at every intersection within the Bridge District. Pedestrian crossing areas shall provide a smooth surface in order to ensure ease of crossing for all users. Pedestrian crosswalk treatments within the district will be demarcated with typical crosswalk markings, in accordance with MUTCD 2003 Section 3B.17.
Yellow, truncated domes shall be used at new or modified crosswalks in order to comply with ADA requirements.
See “Enhanced Intersections” on page 68 for pedestrian crosswalk treatments within “special” intersections.
Attachment 2
681
70 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Enhanced Intersections
The figure at right illustrates “special” intersections where high levels of pedestrian traffic are expected and/or where intersections effectively form “gateways” into the Bridge District. The following enhanced intersection treatments shall be employed within these intersections:
1.Enhanced Intersection/Pedestrian Crosswalk Treatment
At identified intersections, special paving treatments shall be used within the pedestrian crossing and the intersection to increase crosswalk visibility and create a visual “gateway” at important intersections. In these instances, roadway pavers/materials contrasting to those used within the travel lane shall be used within the crosswalk and intersection (preferably in a contrasting color or pattern) in order to increase its visibility.
Consistent use of materials along the Riverfront Retail Street is also required. Consistent, high quality materials must be used within the intersection where Riverfront intersects with Ballpark, State U-Street, Market Street, Grand, and Bridge Street (see figure at right).
2.Curbs
Within identified enhanced intersections granite curbs shall be employed.
3.Sidewalks
At identified intersections, special sidewalk materials may be used to visually highlight the intersection.
Enhanced intersection
treatment
AT CERTAIN “SPECIAL” INTERSECTIONS,
PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS WILL BE TREATED
WITH THE SAME CONCRETE USED WITHIN THE
CLEAR ZONE OF THE SIDEWALK. WHERE THIS
OCCURS WITHIN STREETS WITH TEXTURED
PAVERS, THE EDGE OF THE CROSSWALK SHALL
BE BORDERED WITH CONTRASTING PAVERS TO
THOSE USED WITHIN THE TRAVEL LANE
Attachment 2
682
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 71
3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
6. BICYCLES
The intent of the standards and guidelines relating to bicycle lane treatments in this section are intended to encourage bicycling as a mode of transportation, and to ensure the safety of all bicyclists within the Bridge District.
Bicycle network
The map below illustrates planned bicycle and pedestrian paths, bicycle lanes, and bicycle routes (where bikes and cars share the road) within the Bridge District.
Attachment 2
683
72 3. STREETSCAPE STANDARDS
Bicycle markings
Bicycle lane markings shall be consistent with Section 9C of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
On designated bicycle routes (as indicated by the map on page 69), where bikes and cars share the roadway, consider utilizing a shared roadway bicycle marking in accordance with MUTCD 2003 California Supplement Section 9C.103. The Shared Roadway Bicycle Marking assists bicyclists with positioning on a shared roadway where there is on-street parallel parking, and alerts vehicles of the location a bicyclist may occupy within the traveled way. Additionally, it may reduce the chance of conflicts between bicyclists and open doors of parked vehicles. 7 San Francisco Shared Lane Marking Study
reet
t Street
eastbound westbound
northbound southbound
westbound eastbound
Bicycle lane safety
When bicycle lanes are immediately adjacent to the curb with no on-street parallel parking between the curb and the sidewalk (as on Fifth Street and the western portions of Grand), consideration must be paid to the drainage elements along the curb to ensure that a high degree of safety is maintained for bicyclists.
Trench drains and drain inlets located along the curb and immediately adjacent to the bicycle lane shall be narrow enough so as not to protrude into the bike lane (see image at right). This ensures that bicyclists within the bicycle lane are not encouraged to serve left (into the traffic lane) around any protruding gutter seams.
Drainage gratings along the curb and immediately adjacent to the bicycle lane shall provide a tight pattern, or one that is perpendicular to the bicycle travel direction (rather than parallel). This ensures that bicycle wheels are able to safely traverse the pattern without the wheels getting caught.
FAR TOP RIGHT: WIDE GUTTERS THAT EXTEND
INTO THE BICYCLE LANE OFTEN CREATE A
SITUATION IN BICYCLISTS RIDE CLOSER TO
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IN ORDER TO AVOID
SEAMS.
FAR BOTTOM RIGHT: NARROW GUTTERS
ALONG THE CURB ENCOURAGE BICYCLISTS TO
RIDE FULLY WITHIN THE BICYCLE LANE AND
FURTHER AWAY FROM VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
NEAR RIGHT: ANOTHER OPTION MAY BE TO
FULLY EXTEND THE PRE-CAST CURB ACROSS
THE ENTIRE BICYCLE LANE, THEREBY VISUALLY
DISTINGUISHING THE BIKE LANE FROM
VEHICULAR TRAVEL LANES.
“SHARROWS” CAN BE USED TO TO HELP
POSITION BICYCLISTS ON STREETS WHERE
THERE IS NOT A DEDICATED BIKE LANE
Attachment 2
684
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 73
4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
INTENT
The intent of the building design standards is to ensure that the design treatment of the ground floor of buildings in the Bridge District adequately address the public realm, create an inviting environment for pedestrians, and enhance the public streetscape investment. They are intended to reinforce the character and intent of each individual street type, as described in Section 2 (“Regulating Plan”).
ORGANIZATION
Because the identity of a neighborhood or district is largely determined by it’s streets (and how buildings relate to and contribute to the character of those streets), the building design standards within this section are organized around the Bridge District Regulating Plan’s street hierarchy. The building design standards directly relate to and are unique for each street type, and are intended to reinforce the unique character envisioned for each of those street types.
Because the primary purpose of the building design standards is to foster the creation of a vibrant pedestrian realm, the standards focus on that part of the building that most directly impacts the public realm, namely, the ground floor facade as it is experienced from the sidewalk. Accordingly, the building design standards are organized around “frontage types” (see page 73 for an overview and comparison of the various frontage types permitted). Particular standards controlling items such as front setbacks, building frontage, ground floor height, ground floor transparency, primary building entries, awnings and canopies, porches and stoops, fences, and landscaping are then tied to and presented according to individual frontage types.
HOW TO USE THESE STANDARDS
Like the streetscape standards in the previous section, the building design standards are “keyed” into the regulating plan. To determine the standards applicable to any given parcel,
1.Look to the Regulating Plan in Section 2 to determine the type of street on which the parcel fronts.
2. Look to the matrix on pages 74-75 to determine the frontage types permitted along that particular street type. The particular building design standards applicable to each permitted frontage type are presented on pages 77-82.
Note that parcels located at corner intersections must comply with the standards for each street type on which the property fronts.
Attachment 2
685
74 “Frontage” is defined as a building’s front, street-facing, ground level facade, which must include the primary building entrance (i.e., the “front door”).
Streets within the Regulating Plan are presented in descending order of prominence, and buildings must be oriented to and have their front doors directly connected to the highest order street facing the lot. For example, all buildings along Grand must have their front doors oriented to and directly connected to the sidewalk along that street.
However, buildings on corner lots must have their primary frontage facing the higher order street. For example, a building on the corner of Grand and Fifth Street would have Grand as its primary “frontage.” If a property owner chooses, however, lots with two street frontages may orient buildings to the corner in lieu of facing the higher order street only.
BUILDING FRONTAGE AND THE ORDER OF STREETS
Higher order to lower
order streets
1. Riverfront Retail Street
4. Fifth Street
3. Grand
5. Riverfront View Street
6. Local Street
7. Internal Universal Street
2. Riverfront Transition
Attachment 2
686
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 75
4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Frontage Description Example Plan Section
Townhouse Porch
This frontage type is characterized by a
facade which is aligned on or close to
the property line with the ground story
elevated from the sidewalk to provide
privacy for the ground floor uses. The
entrance is accessed by a porch which
is appended to the front facade. This
frontage is suitable for ground floor
residential uses
Stoop
A Stoop frontage is characterized by a
facade which is aligned on or close to
the property line with the ground story
elevated from the sidewalk to provide
privacy for the ground floor uses. The
entrance is usually an exterior stair or
landing which may be combined with a
small roof. This frontage type is suitable
for ground floor residential uses.
Door Yard/Terrace/Light Court
A Door Yard/Terrace or Light Court
frontage is characterized by a facade
that is set back from the street property
line by an elevated terrace or a sunken
light court. The Door Yard/Terrace or
Light Court is suitable for ground floor
residential and/or commercial uses
(including outdoor dining)
Forecourt
A Forecourt frontage may be created by
recessing a central portion of the facade
for a portion of the building frontage.
The Forecourt frontage should be used
in conjunction with other frontage types
(Linear or Linear Storefront). A Forecourt
may be suitable for gardens and/or
outdoor dining. A Forecourt is appropriate
for residential or commercial uses.
Linear Storefront
A Linear Storefront frontage is
characterized by a facade which is aligned
close to or directly on the right-of-way line
with the building entrance at sidewalk
grade. Linear Storefront frontages
have substantial glazing on the ground
floor, and provide awnings or canopies
cantilevered over the sidewalk. Building
entries must either provide a canopy or
awning and/or be recessed behind the
front building facade. This frontage is
appropriate for commercial retail uses.
Linear
A Linear frontage is characterized by a
facade which is aligned close to or directly
on the right-of-way line with the building
entrance at sidewalk grade. Linear
Storefront frontages have substantial
glazing on the ground floor, but are not
required to provide awnings or canopies
over the sidewalk. Building entries must
either provide a canopy or awning and/
or be recessed behind the front building
facade. This frontage is appropriate for
residential or commercial uses.
Min15’
Property line
private lot public row
Property line
private lot public row
Attachment 2
687
76 4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Townhouse
Porch Stoop
Door Yard/
Terrace/
Light Court Forecourt
Linear
Storefront Linear
1. Riverfront
Retail Street X
2. Riverfront
Transition X X X
3. Grand
Segment #1
(Tower Bridge
Gateway to Ballpark)
X X X X
Segment #2
(Ballpark to Fifth
Street)
X X X
Segment #3 (Fifth
Street to Riverfront) X X
4. Fifth Street
X X X
5. Riverfront
View Street X X X X X X
Segment #3 (Garden
Street) X X X X
6. Local Street
(see
“Neighborhoods”
figure on page 75)
X X X X X X
Core
Tower
Pioneer
Waterfront
ALLOWABLE BUILDING FRONTAGES BY STREET TYPE
The matrix below outlines which building frontage types are permitted along each street type. The building design standards specific to each frontage type follow this matrix. Note that these standards are in no way intended to discourage building articulation along any given facade. Building facade articulation is encouraged in the district.
* see p.81 for building setback requirements for buildings fronting the Riverfront Promenade or adjacent loop roads.
Attachment 2
688
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 77
4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
7. Internal
Universal Street
Buildings not required to comply with Building Frontage Types (though they may chose to do so). See page 84 for minimum building frontage required along street-facing property line. Buildings along Internal Universal Streets must provide a minimum of 30% window glazing along the street-facing, ground floor facade of the building, and are encouraged to locate building entries and other building activities along the Internal Universal Street frontage, but are not required to do so.
Riverfront
Promenade/
Loop Road *
X X X X X
Townhouse
Porch Stoop
Door Yard/
Terrace/
Light Court Forecourt
Linear
Storefront Linear
THE FIGURE ABOVE ILLUSTRATES THE
NEIGHBORHOODS WITHIN THE BRIDGE
DISTRICT. FRONTAGE TYPES ALONG LOCAL
STREETS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE
NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN WHICH THE STREET
FALLS (SEE CHART “ALLOWABLE BUILDING
FRONTAGES BY STREET TYPE”)
Attachment 2
689
78 4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
While the standards in this section regulate the design of the ground floor building facade and establish standards for how buildings relate to the streets that they front, they do not address the individual uses within buildings.
To some degree, land use along a given street may be implied (but not entirely dictated) by the building frontage types permitted. For example, the “Forecourt,” “Linear Storefront,” and “Linear” frontage types are suited for commercial ground floor uses, such as office or retail (or even ground floor lobby spaces for residential uses on upper floors). The “Townhouse Porch” and “Stoop” frontage types, on the other hand, are more appropriate for residential uses. These are rules of thumb, however, as commercial uses may certainly take place within “Townhouse Porch” and “Stoop” frontage types (and likewise, uses are flexible for other frontage types as well).
However, while land use throughout the district is typically flexible, along Riverfront Retail Street, all buildings must provide retail uses at the ground floor. Note that only the “Linear Storefront” frontage type is permitted along this street. The standards associated with this frontage type (front setbacks, ground floor building height, windows, primary entry doors, and awnings and canopies), ensure that buildings will be designed to accommodate required retail uses. Up to 20%, or 12% (which ever is less) of any one building frontage along Riverfront Retail Street may be dedicated to ground floor residential lobbies. Where additional, optional Riverfront View Universal Streets open onto Riverfront Retail Street, the remainder of the blockface must be comprised of retail uses, and ground floor residential lobbies will not be permitted.
Buildings along Riverfront Retail street are encouraged to be mixed-use. While retail is required at the ground floor, residential and/or office uses are encouraged to occur on upper floors. This mixed-use environment contributes to the overall vibrancy of the street, creating a “24/7” district with complementary land uses.
While retail uses are not required along Grand between Fifth Street and Riverfront, all ground floors along this segment are required to be “retail convertible.” Because the only frontage types permitted along this segment are “Forecourt,” “Linear Storefront,” and “Linear” frontage types, no further regulation is necessary to ensure the retail convertibility of structures. The standards tied to each of these frontage types (setbacks, ground floor building height, windows, primary entry doors, and awnings and canopies) ensure that any structures built along this segment of Grand will be suitable to any present or future retail uses.
RETAIL USES ARE REQUIRED ON THE GROUND
FLOOR ALONG RIVERFRONT RETAIL STREET.
NOTE THAT ONLY THE LINEAR STOREFRONT
FRONTAGE IS PERMITTED ALONG THIS STREET
TYPE. THE BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
ASSOCIATED WITH THIS FRONTAGE TYPE ARE
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE
GROUND FLOOR RETAIL USES.
Ground floor retail uses required
along Riverfront Retail Street
“Retail convertible” ground floors
required along Grand
GROUND FLOORS ALONG GRAND BETWEEN
FIFTH STREET AND RIVERFRONT MUST BE
DESIGNED TO BE “RETAIL CONVERTIBLE.”
NOTE THAT THE ONLY FRONTAGE TYPES
PERMITTED ALONG THIS STREET TYPE ARE
FORECOURTS, LINEAR STOREFRONTS, AND
LINEAR FRONTAGE TYPES. THE BUILDING
DESIGN STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH
EACH OF THESE FRONTAGE TYPES ENSURES
THAT THE GROUND FLOOR IS CAPABLE OF
ACCOMMODATING RETAIL USES.
Attachment 2
690
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 79
4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
A. Townhouse Porch
Townhouse Porch frontages shall conform to the following standards:
1. Primary street setback: The porch may be built along the front property line, or set back a maximum of 12’ to accommodate a front garden.
2. Porch Dimensions: Porches must conform with the
following (note: porch dimensions may vary from the
standards below to accommodate wheelchair ramps, if
necessary):
a. Minimum of 10’ tall (clear).
b. Minimum of 6’ deep (clear).
c. Porch height may be a maximum of 3’ above grade.
d. Minimum 5’ frontage.
3. Columns: Columns supporting porches must be at least XX’ by XX’, and must provide a defined “base” and a
“top.”
4. Windows: The must be 30% of windows along the
ground floor, street-facing facade. Windows must be
vertically oriented (at a ratio of 2:1). Vertical windows may be grouped together to create square-shaped
windows. Windows must provide trim measuring at
least 3”.
5. Primary Entry Doors: In order to provide adequate
“eyes” on the street, ground floor residential uses
must provide individual building entries to individual
residential units. Building entries must face the street and be a minimum 30% transparent.
6. Fences: Fences are permitted within the front setback, but may be no greater than 36” in height, and must be
a minimum of 20% transparent.
7. Landscaping: Landscaping must be provided in the
front setback area, ideally with drought-tolerant, native plant species.
Min3’
Min10’
Min3’
Min10’
Min6’ Min6’
Min6’ Min6’
property line
private lot public row
Setback Line Easement Line
Private Zone Semi-Public
Zone
Public Zone
Min 12’
Min 12’
STANDARDS FOR FRONTAGE TYPES
5’
5’
ACCESS STREET/UNIVERSAL STREET THROUGH STREET/TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY Attachment 2
691
80 4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Min5’
Min10’
Max3’
property line
private lot public row
Max3’
Min5’
Min10’
Setback Line Easement Line
Private Zone Semi-Public
Zone
Public Zone
B. Stoop
Stoop frontages shall conform to the following standards:
1. Primary street setback: The front facade of the building must be set back behind an elevated stoop, which may
directly abut the front property line, or be set back up to 3’ to accommodate a front gate and/or landscaping.
2. Stoop Dimensions: Stoops must conform with the
following (note: stoop dimensions may vary from the
standards below to accommodate wheelchair ramps, if
necessary):
a. Must rise a minimum of 24 inches and a maximum
5’ above grade.
b. Minimum 5’ wide.
3. Stoop frontages may be combined with a small roof.
4. Windows: The must be 30% of windows along the
ground floor, street-facing facade. Windows must be
vertically oriented (at a ratio of 2:1). Vertical windows may be grouped together to create square-shaped
windows. Windows must provide trim measuring at
least 3”.
5. Primary Entry Doors: In order to provide adequate
“eyes” on the street, ground floor residential uses
must provide individual building entries to individual
residential units. Building entries must face the street.
6. Fences: Fences are permitted along the front property line, but may be no greater than 36” in height, and
must be a minimum of 20% transparent.
7. Landscaping: Landscaping must be provided in the
front setback area, ideally with drought-tolerant, native plant species.
Min 24”
Max 5’
Max
Max
Min 24”
Max 5’
ACCESS STREET/UNIVERSAL STREET THROUGH STREET/TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY Attachment 2
692
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 81
4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
Min5’
C. Door Yard/Terrace or Light Court
Door Yard/Terraces or Light Courts shall conform to the following standards:
1. Primary street setback: The front facade of the building must be set back a minimum of 5 feet and a maximum
of 15 feet behind an elevated terrace or sunken light
court. The terrace and/or sunken light court must
directly abut the front property line.
2. Basements accessed by a lightcourt may not be more
than 6’ below the sidewalk.
3. The stoop above the lightcourt may rise to a maximum of 3’ above grade, and be a minimum of 5’ wide (note:
stoop dimensions may vary from these standards to
accommodate wheelchair ramps, if necessary).
4. Windows: The must be 30% of windows along the
ground floor, street-facing facade. Windows must be
vertically oriented (at a ratio of 2:1). Vertical windows may be grouped together to create square-shaped
windows.
5. Primary Entry Doors: In order to provide adequate
“eyes” on the street, primary building entries must face the street.
6. Fences: Fences are permitted within along the front
property line, but may be no greater than 36” in height, and must be at a minimum 20% transparent.
Min3’
Max6’
Min3’
Max6’
Min5’
property line
private lot public row
Setback Line Easement Line
Private Zone Semi-Public
Zone
Public
Zone
Min 5’
Max 15’
Min 5’
Max 15’
ACCESS STREET/UNIVERSAL STREET THROUGH STREET/TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY Attachment 2
693
82 4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
D. Forecourts
Forecourts shall conform to the following standards:
1. Primary street setback: The front facade of the building must be built to the front property line for at least 50% of the overall building frontage. The remaining 50%
of building frontage may be used to create a recessed
courtyard in the central portion of the facade.
2. Forecourts must be set back from the build-to line/front building facade a minimum of 10’ and a maximum of
30’.
3. Forecourts must span a minimum of 10’ along the front facade, and may comprise no more than 50% of the
overall building frontage.
4. The Forecourt frontage shall incorporate other frontage types (Linear or Linear Storefront).
5. Ground floor height: In order to accommodate current or potential future retail uses, the ground floor must
measure a minimum of 15 feet, floor to floor.
6. Minimum building depth: Buildings must be a minimum
of 50’ deep in order to accommodate retail uses on the
ground floor.
7. Forecourts may not be covered, and may be landscaped and/or hardscaped.
8. Windows: Transparent windows must be provided along
at least 60% of the forecourt-facing ground floor facade.
9. Primary Entry Doors: In order to provide adequate “eyes” on the street, primary building entries must face the
street and be a minimum 40% transparent.
10. Fences: Fences and walls with pedestrian openings are permitted within the courtyard setback, but may be no
greater than 36” in height, and must be a minimum of
20% transparent.
Min15’
min10’
Min10’
Max 30’
Min10’
Max 50%
of frontage
property line
private lot public row
courtyard setback line
build-to line
Min15’
Min10’
Max 30’
Min10’
Max 50% of frontage
Easement Line
Semi-Public
Zone
Private
Zone
Public
Zone
courtyard setback line build-to line
ACCESS STREET/UNIVERSAL STREET THROUGH STREET/TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY Attachment 2
694
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 83
4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
E. Linear Storefront
Linear Storefront frontages shall conform to the following standards:
1. Primary street setback: The front facade of the
building must be built to the front property line.
2. Ground floor height: In order to accommodate current or potential future retail uses, the ground floor must
measure a minimum of 15 feet, floor to floor.
3. Minimum building depth: Buildings must be a
minimum of 50’ deep in order to accommodate retail
uses on the ground floor.
4. Weather Protection: Awnings/canopies must be
provided for a minimum of 50% of the overall building
frontage, and must comply with the following:
a. Awnings/canopies must project a minimum of 5’
over the sidewalk.
b. Awnings/canopies must provide a minimum of 8’
and a maximum of 12’ of vertical clearance over the
sidewalk.
5. Building Entrances: Building entrances must either
be covered by an awning or canopy, or be covered
by being recessed behind the front building facade.
If an awning or canopy is provided, it must meet the
dimensional standards provided above. If a recessed
entry is provided, it must be recessed behind the front facade a minimum of 3’.
6. Windows: Transparent ground floor windows must be
provided along a minimum of 60% of the ground floor,
street-facing facade.
7. Primary Entry Doors: In order to create a sidewalk
environment conducive to retail uses and provide
adequate “eyes” on the street, primary building
entries must face the street and be a minimum 40%
transparent.
Min 8’
Max 12’
Min15’
Min 5’
property line
private lot public row
build-to line
Min 8’
Max 12’
Min15’
Min 5’
Easement Line
Semi-Public
Zone
Private
Zone
Public
Zone
build-to line
ACCESS STREET/UNIVERSAL STREET THROUGH STREET/TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY Attachment 2
695
84 4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
F. Linear
Linear frontages shall conform to the following standards:
1. Primary street setback: The front facade of the building must be built to the front property line.
2. Ground floor height: In order to accommodate current or potential future retail uses, the ground floor must measure a minimum of 15 feet, floor to floor.
3. Minimum building depth: Buildings must be a minimum
of 70’ deep in order to accommodate retail uses on the
ground floor.
4. Building Entrances: Building entrances must either be covered by an awning or canopy, or be covered by being
recessed behind the front building facade. If an awning or canopy is provided, it must meet the dimensional
standards provided above. If a recessed entry is provided, it must be recessed behind the front facade a minimum
of 3’.
5. Windows: Transparent ground floor windows must be
provided along a minimum of 60% of the ground floor,
street-facing facade.
6. Primary Entry Doors: In order to create a sidewalk
environment conducive to retail uses and provide
adequate “eyes” on the street, primary building entries must face the street and be a minimum 40% transparent.
Min15’
property line
private lot public row
build-to line
Min15’
Easement Line
Semi-Public
Zone
Private
Zone
Public
Zone
build-to line
ACCESS STREET/UNIVERSAL STREET THROUGH STREET/TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY Attachment 2
696
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 85
4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
BUILDING SETBACKS ALONG THE
WATERFRONT PROMENADE
REQUIRED SETBACK FOR BUILDINGS FRONTING PROMENADE
no build zone (no structures, shrubs, or trees)
58’ setback
promenade walkway/
fire-fighting road
20’
crest line
property line
utility corridor and landscaped setback
38’
Buildings fronting the Waterfront Promenade or its adjacent loop roads must be set back a minimum of 58 feet from the crest line. Building frontages, shrubs, and trees must be set back behind this 58-foot “no-build zone.” Certain building frontage elements such as porches, stoops, and balconies, and certain landscaping elements may encroach into this required 58’ setback, but is subject to the permitting process....(language?).
The diagram below illustrates this required minimum setback when no loop road is present. See p. 41 for required setbacks and dimensions when loop roads are present.
Attachment 2
697
86 4. BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS
BUILDING FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS
The following table establishes the minimum building frontage (stated as a percentage of the total street-facing lot width) required along the street-facing property line/build-to line along each street type (see “Building Frontage Types” for the build-to line associated with each building frontage type).
BUILDING FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS: INTENT
The building frontage requirements are intended to ensure that an adequate “building wall” is created along streets. Higher order streets which are intended to be pedestrian, rather than automobile-oriented, should provide a “solid” building face in order to enhance visual interest along the sidewalk and provide an aesthetically pleasing sense of enclosure. Along lower-order, less pedestrianoriented streets however, solid building facades may not be required along the entire length of the lot. Areas not dedicated to building frontage may be dedicated to screened parking , access, and/or landscaping.
Minimum building frontage required along front
property/build-to line
1. Riverfront Retail
Street 100% of lot width
2. Riverfront Road
Transition
Riverfront Road Transition
North 100% of lot width
Riverfront Road Transition
South 75% of lot width
3. Grand
Segment #1
(Tower Bridge Gateway to
Ballpark)
75% of lot width
Segment #2
(Ballpark to Fifth Street) 75% of lot width
Segment #3
(Fifth Street to Riverfront) 100% of lot width
4. Fifth Street 75% of lot width
5. Riverfront View Street 75% of lot width
6. Local Street 50% of lot width
7. Internal Universal
Street 50% of lot width
Attachment 2
698
WEST SACRAMENTO TRIANGLE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN: DESIGN STANDARDS 87
5. SUSTAINABILITY GUIDELINES
The intent of sustainability guidelines is to establish a framework that will assist individual building projects in reducing their environmental impact, and in contributing to the overall development’s sustainability goals.
GUIDELINES
Many of the proposed development regulations follow the guidelines established in the LEED for Neighborhood Design Program (the City of West Sacramento intends to submit the Bridge District for LEED ND status). Issues that should be considered at an individual building level, include the following:
• Building Siting 1: Smart Location
Purpose: This guideline sites buildings in a manner that takes advantage of public transit to reduce vehicle trips and miles travelled.
Guideline: Locate the project near existing or planned transit and so that 50% of the dwelling units/businesses are within a ¼ mile walking distance of transit. • Building Siting 2: Design for Solar Access
Purpose: This guideline sites buildings in a manner that minimizes costly heating and cooling loads.
Guideline: Optimize solar access to reduce energy operating costs, provide better daylight, and present greater opportunities for using renewable energy system.
Protect critical existing ecological areas.
• Day-Lighting
Purpose: This guideline achieves advanced energy efficiency by creating optimum conditions for the use of passive and active solar strategies.
Guideline: Incorporate day-lighting in buildings as a means of providing direct operational savings in reduced demand for electric lighting. Day-lit spaces contribute to increased occupant productivity and reduce illness and absenteeism.
INTENT
• Energy Performance
Purpose: This guideline identifies and promotes energy efficient products that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and maximizes energy efficient through building envelope upgrades that better control air infiltration, heating and cooling systems ducts systems, and water heating equipment.
Attachment 2
699
88 • Stormwater Management
Purpose: This guideline limits disruption and pollution of natural water flows by managing stormwater run-off.
Guideline: Encourage integrated stormwater management planning; treat stormwater runoff on-site through the use of bio-swales and landscape plantings.
Encourage the use of green roofs, permeable pavers and other strategies to reduce impermeable surface area. Consider the potential to store and re-use rainwater on site for landscape irrigation.
• Water Use Efficiency
Purpose: This guideline limits or eliminates the use of potable water or other natural surface or subsurface water resources available on or near the project site for irrigation.
Guideline: Encourage landscaping that favors native or low-water intensity plantings and use efficient irrigation systems; encourage use of low-flow fixtures in buildings. Consider capturing the water that falls on buildings’ roofs to reuse on-site. Consider reusing gray-water onsite for non-potable uses such as toilet flushing, clothes washing, and landscape irrigation.
• Materials and Resources
Purpose: This guideline encourages the reduction of what is generated by building occupants that has to be hauled and disposed in landfills and establishes minimum air quality standards that contribute to the comfort of inhabitants.
Guideline: Encourage the use of materials from within the region, and, where possible, reuse existing materials promote indoor environmental quality.
Encourage the use of low-toxicity paints and sealants.
• Construction Practices
Purpose: This guideline reduces the use of finite materials, especially materials that contribute to pollution.
Guideline: Develop construction standards that reduce construction-related pollution and encourage recycling and comprehensive construction waste management policies.
Guideline: Encourage high performance building envelopes, efficient lighting and controls systems, and efficient mechanical systems. Building wall and roof construction, as well as glass types and shading all contribute substantially to a building’s energy performance. Efficient lighting and equipment systems reduce energy operating costs. Climate specific design provides both increased comfort and reduced energy operating costs. Climate specific design considerations can also reduce mechanical system requirements.
Attachment 2
700
)
)
BRIDGE DISTRICT (TRIANGLE)
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
June2010
Attachment 3
701
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 2
Attachment 3
702
) TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Overview
1.2 Expected Buildout, Current Conditions and the 2014 Plan
2.0 BRIDGE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
3.0 4.0
2.1 Key Planning Concepts
2.1.1 Developing a Place of Civic Significance
2.1.2 Developing a "River City"
2.2 Buildout Assumptions
2.2.1 Public Areas and Net Buildable Areas
2.2.2 Buildout Assumptions
TRANSPORTATION PLANS
3.1 Integrated Transportation System
3.2 Walkways and Pedestrian Circulation
3.3 Roadways and Vehicular Circulation
3.4 Parking
3.5 Transit
3.6 Bikeway Facilities
3.7 Rail Removal and Relocation
MUNICIPAL UTILITY PLANS
4.1 Backbone Water Distribution System
4.1.1 Water Demand Assumptions
4.1.2 Backbone Water Distribution System
4.2 Backbone Sewer Collection System
4.2.1 Sewer Flow Assumptions
4.2.2 Backbone Sewer Collection System
4.3 Backbone Storm Drainage Collection System
4.3.1 Drainage Collection Assumptions
4.3.2 Backbone Storm Drainage Collection System
4.3.3 Peak Flow Attenuation
4.3.4 Parcel Requirements
5.0 PARKS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL ELEMENTS
5.1 River Walk Promenade
5.2 Neighborhood Parks
5.3 Distributed Neighborhood Recreational Elements
6.0 CIVIC CORRIDOR AMENITIES
6.1 Grand Street Corridor
6.2 Ballpark Drive Corridor
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY a
Attachment 3
703
7.0 FINANCING PLAN
7.1 Summary Costs and Allocations
7.1.1 Backbone Improvements
7.1.2 Supplemental Improvements
7.2 Financing, Challenges, Considerations and Approach
7.2.1 Challenges
7 .2.2 Considerations and Approach
7.3 Funding Sources
7.3.1 Existing and Potential Funding Sources
7 .3.2 Financing Strategy
7.4 2014 Plan and Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (2009 - 2014)
7.4.1 Redevelopment Efforts to Date
7.4.2 Current Conditions and the 2014 Plan
7.4.3 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (2009 to 2014)
8.0 ACTION PLAN
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: Bridge District Capital Improvement Program
Exhibit 2: Developing a Place of Civic Significance
Exhibit 3: Bridge District Neighborhoods
Fxhibit 4: Bridge District Public Areas and Development Blocks ./4hibit 5: Through Streets
Exhibit 6: Access Streets
Exhibit 7: Public Roadways and Traffic Signals
Exhibit 8: On-street Parking
Exhibit 9: Transit Facilities
Exhibit 10: Bikeway Facilities
Exhibit 11: Bridge District Rail Facilities to be Removed Exhibit 12: Backbone Water Distribution System
Exhibit 13: Backbone Sewer Collection System
Exhibit 14: Backbone Drainage Collection System
Exhibit 15: Bridge District Park Plan
Exhibit 16: Plaza
Exhibit 17: 2014 Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Bridge District Development and Investment Summary Table 2: 2014 Plan
Table 3: Maximum and Expected Buildout Assumptions
Table 4: Peak Hour Automobile Trip Generation Rate Assumptions -able 5: Parking Supply
fable 6: Water Demand Assumptions
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY b
Attachment 3
704
)
Table 7: Sewer Demand Assumptions
Table 8: Backbone Improvement Costs and Allocations
Table 9: Supplemental Improvement Costs and Allocations Table 10: Funding Source for Backbone Improvements
Table 11: Funding Source for Supplemental Improvements
Table 12: Development and Investment Summary
Table 13: Five Year Capital Improvement Program (2009 - 2014) Table 14: Five Year Action Plan
APPENDICES (SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT)
Appendix A: Development Program Technical Materials
• Public areas and net buildable assumptions and technical tables/exhibits • Maximum Buildout scenario assumptions and technical tables/exhibits • Expected Buildout scenario assumptions and technical tables/exhibits Appendix B: Transportation and Circulation Technical Materials Appendix B1: Integrated Transportation System
• TOM requirements, strategies, guidelines, etc.
Appendix B2: Walkways and Pedestrian Circulation
• Traffic calming requirements, strategies, guidelines, etc. • Walkway/Pedestrian improvement scope and cost estimates Appendix B3: Roadways and Vehicular Circulation
• TJKM traffic study memo
• Roadway Master Plan (engineered plans and technical materials) • Roadway Master Plan cost estimates and allocations
• Regional traffic facilities list
Appendix B4: Parking
• Shared parking requirements, cost estimates, and allocations Appendix B5: Transit
• Excerpts from Streetcar Study
• Transit level of service, route plans, strategies, assumptions • Transit/Streetcar improvement scope, cost, allocations Appendix B6: Blkeways
• Excerpts from City Bikeway Master Plan
Appendix B7 Rail Removal
• Technical materials on rail removal
• Scope, cost estimates, allocation
Appendix C: Municipal Utilities Technical Materials
C1 Backbone Water Distribution System
• Water demand assumption technical materials
• Water Master Plan (engineered plans and technical materials) • Water Master Plan cost estimates and allocations
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY C
Attachment 3
705
C2 Backbone Sewer Collection System
• Sewer demand assumption technical materials
• Sewer Master Plan (engineered plans and technical materials) • Water Master Plan cost estimates and allocations
C3 Backbone Drainage Collection System
• Drainage demand assumption technical materials
• Drainage Master Plan (engineered plans and technical materials) • Drainage Master Plan cost estimates and allocations
• Drainage standards and guidel ines
C4 Municipal Sizing Factors
Appendix D: Parks and Other Recreational Elements Technical Materials D1 River Walk Promenade
• River Walk Promenade Plan (Walker Macy design materials) • Scope definition, cost estimates and allocations
D2 Neighborhood Parks
• Ironworks Park conceptual design materials
• Garden Park conceptual design materials
• Channel Park conceptual design materials
• Scope definition, cost estimates and allocations
• Park Impact Fee eligible projects list
D3 Park Development Program/Recreational Elements
• Standards, guidelines, and description of process
• List of eligible facilities
Appendix E: Civic Corridor Amenities Technical Materials • Grand Street Corridor design materials and amenities list • Ballpark Drive Corridor design materials and amenities list Appendix F: Financing Plan Technical Materials
• Rollup of Improvement Costs/Allocations/Sources
• Regional Costs/Allocations/Financing (incl. EPS studies) • Bridge District Costs/Allocations/Financing (allocations to parcels) • Calculation of Bridge District Fee (EPS)
• CFO Technical Studies (EPS)
• Tax increment projections (EPS)
• Five Year Capital Improvement Program (plans, cost estimates, etc.) Appendix G: LEED Neighborhood Development Standards
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY d
Attachment 3
706
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Overview
The Implementation Strategy is Volume 3 of the Bridge District Specific Plan. The Specific Plan envisions the Bridge District as "a place of civic significance for West Sacramento which establishes it as a river city".
Volume 1: Vision, Plan and Procedures defines planning intent, policies, objectives, and baseline entitlements.
Volume 2: Urban Standards defines streetscape and ground floor design standards.
This Volume 3, Implementation Strategy, serves as the technical blueprint by which the Bridge District will be redeveloped from industrial uses to residential and commercial uses. It summarizes buildout assumptions, backbone facilities, financing strategies, and a five year capital improvement program for the 2009 to 2014 period. Urban or "smart growth" infrastructure standards for circulation, neighborhood parks, and utilities design are included.
Additionally, it defines the scope of improvements eligible for public investment. This report is supported by Appendices A through F which contain the full technical detail that is summarized in the following sections.
The Implementation Strategy is a living document that will be periodically updated (approximately every five years) to reflect current conditions, technical refinements, and implementation priorities. Regular updates of each Appendix are completed on ongoing basis by the city department responsible for the specific program, infrastructure and or regulatory content, provided the update does not constitute a substantive or policy change. Current conditions and activities are summarized as follows:
De-Industrialization: These efforts include relocation of industrial tenants {almost complete), demolition of industrial buildings (in progress), and removaljrelocation of rail (in progress).
Pre-Development Planning: These efforts include preliminary engineering, design, and financing studies necessary to implement the Specific Plan. This volume summarizes the result of these studies as well as key assumptions, plans, and strategies.
Urban Standards: These efforts include proposed changes in city regulations, standards and investments that support a higher density, sustainable development model including transit and structured parking.
Early Development: Current planning efforts are focused on catalyzing redevelopment of the Bridge District area east of tbe Union Pacific rail line. This area requires significant backbone infrastructure and amenity improvements to support initial private development projects.
Early development projects in the Bridge District will be pioneering, higher risk, and will selljrent at discounted prices relative to comparable projects in the City of Sacramento's downtown, midtown, and railyard neighborhoods (its primary market competitors). Establishing a critical development mass in the Bridge District is a paramount near-term objective as it will mitigate risk, stimulate demand and create value to support additional development.
1.2 Expected Buildout, Current Conditions, and the 2014 Plan Table 1 provides a development and investment summary for expected buildout, current conditions (March 2009), and the 2014 Plan. At buildout the Bridge District is expected to have approximately 9.6 million square feet of BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 1
Attachment 3
707
development, roughly split between residential and commercial development. This development program will require ~ri estimated $135 million in infrastructure and amenity improvements.
Table 1: Bridge District Development and Investment Summary Expected March 2009 Condition2 2014 Plan (stand 2014 Condition 2015+ (remaining) Buildout1 alone 3
Development Program
Total Net Buildable Land Area (sqft) 4,933,597 4,933,597 4,933,597 4,933,597 4,933,597 Developed Buildable Land Area (sqft) 4,933,597 366,200 1,003,600 1,369,800 3,563,797 Percent Developed 100% 7% 20% 28% 72%
Residential Units 4,000 196 731 927 3,073
Commercial Building Area (sqft) 5,599,989 131,000 35,000 166,000 5,433,989 Total Building Area 9,599,989 366,200 912,200 1,278,400 8,321,589 Effective Floor to Area Ratio 1.95 1.00 0.91 0.93 2.34
Investments (in 2009 dollars)
Backbone Infrastructure and Amenities' $135,358,705 $0 $49,196,741 $49,196,741 $86,161,964 As percent of total 100% 0% 36% 36% 64%
Supplemental Infrastructure & Amenities see Chapter 7 $0 $0 $0 see Chapter 7 1 As defined in Section 2.2 (Buildout Assumptions); assumes an average of 1,000 square feet per residential unit. 2 Includes approved residential units that are part of the Ironworks development (average size of 1,200 square feet) Raley Field is equivalent to 130,000 square feet of commercial building area. Does not include existing industrial and related uses that will ultimately be relocated. 3 Assumes an average of 1,200 square feet per residential unit . 4 see Section 7
Currently, the Bridge District includes 187 approved residential units and 131,000 square feet of commercial space.
Approximately $4 million of investment in pre-construction design, engineering and environmental documentation has been committed to backbone improvements to date.
The 2014 Plan includes 731 residential units and $49.2 million in backbone and supplemental improvements. Exhibit 1 illustratively depicts the 2014 Plan. Residential development and facility improvements are clustered in three locations which will serve as "bookends" for future infill development. Additional private development projects and facility investments are currently being evaluated for potential inclusion in the 2014 Plan or later plans.
After the 2014 Plan is implemented, the Bridge District is expected to have capacity for approximately 8.3 million square feet of remaining development and require $86 million in remaining backbone investments.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 2
Attachment 3
708
Exhibit 1: The 2014 Plan
-r--~
.:.::::, .. ,.. . ... ,.._,_ --- -.. ~ :• ~•~.' I. -:~.... ·t· ,,.
Five Year Capital Improvement Program (2009 through 2014) Table 2 summarizes, and Exhibit 1 depicts, the five year capital improvement program (CIP) to implement the 2014 Plan. This CIP focuses on constructing certain public backbone infrastructure and amenities necessary to support the 2014 Plan. Improvements include construction of streets, municipal utilities (i.e., water, sewer, and drainage), parks, and other associated infrastructure and amenities. These investments are intended to serve the sites adjacent to the improvements and to catalyze redevelopment of remaining areas in the Bridge District.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 3
Attachment 3
709
,.able 2: 2014 Plan
Improvement Prop. 1C Prop. 50
e[Qpo ilio □ :I C C1~ ~dm1alMgrnt $650,000 $0
IramRC:datioo aod C1rwlatioa
Roadways and Si de walks $12,035,000 $0
Trais,t and Other Circulation $0 $0
Total Transportation & Circulation $12,035,000 $0
MuniciDa lJlihties
Water $860,000 $0
Sanitary Sewer $3,957,000 $0
Storm Drainage $1,895,200 $0
Joint Trench $252,500 $0
Total Municipal Utilities $6,965,500 $0
ea1:ks aad Qtbec eubli" Sr:2aces
Riverfrort Promenade $0 $1,727,741
Neighborhood Parks $1,500,000 $0
Total Partcs and Public Spaces $1,500,000 $1,727,741
TOTAL BACKBONE FACILITIES $21, 150,500 $1,727,741
Parking and Density Incentives $1,260,000 $0
BACKBONE+SUPPLEMENTAL $22,410,500 $1,727,741
Maximum Prop 1C $23,081,000
(1) Source Is Trafftc Impact Fee Fund: to be advanced by tax increment. {2) Advanced by Water Enterprise Fund, to be repaid by CFO 27 (3) Source Is Park Impact Fee Fund
Tax lncremen1 CFO 23
$0 $0
$2,212, 000 $285,000
$0 $0
$2,212,000 $285,000
$75,000 $21 5,200
$0 $357,000
$1 00,000 $373,800
$0 $252,500
$175,000 $1,198,500
$3,330,951 $0
$0 $0
$3,330,951 $0
$5,717,951 $1,483,500
$0 $0
$5,717,951 $1 ,483,500
Sources of Funds
CFD27 Other TOTAL Water Fund lmoact Fees t<lnder Moroi.n $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,000
$5,253,021 $0 $2,633,200 (1) $250,000 $22,668,221
$700,000 $0 $0 $0 $700,000
$5,953,021 $0 $2,633,200 $250,000 $23,368,221
$0 $5,000,000 (2) $0 $0 $6,151,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $4,314,000
$2,000,000 $0 $C $0 $4,369,000
$0 $0 $0 $0 $505,000
$2,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 $0 $15,339,000
$2,940,828 $0 $C $0, $7,999,5201
$0 $0 $500,000 (3) $0 $2,000,000
$2,940,828 $0 $500,000 $0 $9,999,520
$10,893,849 $5,000,000 $3,133,200 $250,000 $49,356,741
$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,260,000
$10,893,849 $5,000,000 $3,133,200 $250,000 $50,616,741
The Five Year CIP is driven by a $23.1 million grant awarded to the Bridge District as part of the state of California Qroposition 1C funding program. This grant was secured by the commitment of 731 residential units (198 affordable) .nd approximately $28 million in local government and private infrastructure investments.
Action Plan Summary
The Implementation Strategy requires the city and property owners to perform a number of additional actions subsequent to the approval of the Specific Plan. These include, but are not limited to the following:
• Develop and adopt architectural guidelines and sustainability measures and seek appropriate LEED designations.
• Complete comprehensive parking ordinances and implementation of the structured parking financing program including in-lieu fees.
• Implement financing mechanisms including adoption of the street car financing, parking enterprise fund, community financing district and community services district. • Complete ROW and park acquisitions and dedications, deed covenants and easements. • Determine timing of west side rail relocation or creation of at-grade crossing for infrastructure improvements west of Fifth Street.
• Implement "urban" fees and standards including: 1) General Plan amendments for noise, light, residential density, heights and levels of service; 2) "density bank" processes; 3) design guidelines for Tower Bridge Gateway.
• Develop Bridge District Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 4
Attachment 3
710
2.0 BRIDGE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM
This section documents key Bridge District planning concepts, objectives, and assumptions critical to preparing this Implementation Strategy. These elements define the development program that will be supported by the public infrastructure and amenities described in following sections. Additional detail on this section is found in Appendix A:
Development Program Technical Materials.
2.1 Key Planning Concepts
This section summarizes key over-arching Specific Plan concepts. These concepts are summarized in the vision to "develop a place of civic significance for West Sacramento which establishes it as a river city". Additional detail on these planning concepts and objectives is found in Volume 1.
2.1.1 Developing a Place of Civic Significance
The Specific Plan envisions the 188 acre Bridge District as the "urban core" and "focus of West Sacramento". Central to this vision is the development of facilities that provide public benefit and civic identity. These facilities are shown in Exhibit 2 and are incorporated in the Implementation Strategy as follows:
River Walk Promenade and Plaza: This open space, pedestrian, and bikeway corridor will provide public access along the length of the Sacramento riverfront as well as an array of recreational and civic facilities. These facilities are described in Section 5.1. The promenade paths lead to the diamond shaped plaza located at the east end of Grand, a regional day and night destination.
Grand Street Corridor: This corridor connects the City of West Sacramento civic center area with the River Walk Promenade. This corridor includes "green" unique botanical landscape treatments (see Volume 2), civic design features (see Volume 2), and public amenities (see Section 6) along its length.
Ballpark Drive Corridor: This corridor connects the interior of the Bridge District with the River Walk Promenade. This corridor includes civic streetscape treatments (see Volume 2) and public amenities (Sections 5.2 and 6) while preserving views of Tower Bridge.
Tower Bridge Gateway Corridor: This corridor is a front door arterial which connects the Bridge District (and the City of West Sacramento in general) with the City of Sacramento urban core. This corridor will include special civic streetscape design features and monuments marking entry into the city and sub-areas that are served by it. This corridor is intended to serve as a grand entry to the city and design treatments and landscaping will reinforce its linkages with the Bridge District, Washington and West Capitol Corridor neighborhoods. Tower Bridge Gateway is not fully within the Bridge or Washington Specific Plans or West Capitol Corridor Area. Specific design guidelines for Tower Bridge Gateway will be developed by the city and adjacent property owners in the future and amended into the Bridge District Volume 2 upon adoption.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 5
Attachment 3
711
Exhibit 2: Developing a Place of Civic Significance
*
- R1vertront Promenade
- RiverfrontAccessConidor
Streets of Civie Significance
V)
0::
UJ
>
~i ' :sndge District ~pecific P.la'n: Oevelo~ing a Place:ofCiv,c'-Significance -- -l !. i;;z. R,\1\irh1~ r, • I n.i;, • ,---. ty •~'-'•'-.~t~t, 1•1 ~111 1, • ,'\: l'ANl ,iorJ'Jc:, _ _ J.
2.1.2 Developing a "River City"
The Specific Plan envisions the Bridge District as a vibrant urban district that is connected to the Sacramento River.
This concept is incorporated in the Implementation Strategy as follows:
Urban Neighborhoods: The Bridge District is subdivided into four distinct but integrated neighborhoods of differing urban character and development intensity (see Exhibit 3). Buildout assumptions for these neighborhoods are described in Section 2.2 and are supported by the infrastructure, amenity, and financing plans described in the 1bsequent sections.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 6
Attachment 3
712
Urban Grid: The Bridge District street grid creates pedestrian friendly blocks that support high density development and maximize the number of multi-modal routes from one destination to another. Volume 2 includes urban street hierarchy regulations governing the relationship of the buildings to the street in order to create a unified and cohesive public realm. The grid provides for a mix of vehicular, transit, bikeway, and pedestrian facilities that connect neighborhoods within the Bridge District and connect the Bridge District with the region. Transportation facilities are described in Section 3.
River Form: The Bridge District grid, neighborhoods, parks, and other facilities have strong connections to the form of the river. This form is reflected in the complimentary alignment of the street grid (Section 3), design of public amenities (Sections 5 and 6), and streetscape and building design standards (Volume 2). The primary physical elements for making the connection between the riverfront and internal District areas are at least seven eastjwest access streets between Riverfront and the River Walk Promenade.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 7
Attachment 3
713
Exhibit 3: Bridge District Neighborhoods
- Tower
Pioneer
- Waterfront
'BridgeOistrict'Specitic Plan: Neighborhoods r \ fl1.,\ 1\hl11!1-1Lk • l'J!.~ • ~ ll)/(l/Wi"•\l~! lfl\~J)Jlt • \ '/"'1:.dfJ lo. ]1)1'1\ a::
uJ
>
a:
0 - - -
2.2 Buildout Assumptions
A total of 12.5 million square feet of occupied building is programmed for the Bridge District. Of the total occupied building area, 12 million square feet is allocated on a neighborhood basis by type of use (i.e. commercial vs. residential) pursuant to the regulations identified in Appendix A. The remaining 0.5 million square feet is banked as a density incentive accessed through the Density Bank mechanisms (see Section 2.2.2 and Appendix A). , he neighborhood boundaries are depicted in Exhibit 3 and neighborhood allocations of the 12 million buildout are shown in Table 3. The 1993 Specific Plan described a formula for entitlement allocation based on 1) a gross FAR BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 8
Attachment 3
714
number (see below "Maximum Development Capacity exhibit"), which depicts the ratio of maximum allowable building area to the gross block area, and 2) the maximum and mix of land uses on a neighborhood basis. The maximum land uses on a neighborhood basis ratio are also described in "Development Entitlements by Specific Plan Neighborhood" table in Volume 1 XXXX. This formula is based on allocating a pro-rata share of entitlements at the neighborhood level. The formulas and additional detail, including the establishment of the density bank is further described in Volume 3, Appendix A.
<:>'
·"' #q_
sov,1 -
' ' I
-·•--. I I ,I ~ II I
M.t 11
3:1
I ; ! / Giirc!eiz
I'
: 2.5:1·,
I 1.;' I ,::._- I I
I ._ M';;r_ --
i I
'
S~':¾: .. -.c:::==~ ,~ -::~::... ""
, ··,,,r?~~
,,
/.'
//
/,'
fihl" 11H •
a:
UJ
>
0 1--
~
/.J.J
~
p - - - -,
B1'idg_e Distr!cf$1.i"ec1rtc Plan: Maximum Dclvel:opmerit Capacity 'i.lit, .\t:•l'r:,.11 • I• , 4 L L, " ' \",," ~•, \lt'!,",I , \\'•111< 1 l,\rdt!i•1~ The 1993 EIR for the Triangle Specific Plan studied a build out scenario consistent with the "Development Entitlements by Specific Plan Neighborhood" table in Volume 1. Since that time, two changes to the neighborhoods have been approved: 1) the park blocks neighborhood has been merged into the two adjacent neighborhoods; and 2) the District boundaries have been expanded to include a parcel to the south of the freeway known as the CEMEX parcel which was merged into the Waterfront Neighborhood.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 9
Attachment 3
715
The transportation, circulation, and municipal utilities studies analyzed a build out program that differed from the "Development Entitlements by Specific Plan Neighborhood" table in Volume 1, favoring a more even split of uses and a total build out scenario in excess of 12 million square feet of development. The Buildout Assumptions section of this Volume and its Appendices contain additional information about the studies and the sizing of the infrastructure. The 2009 Bridge District supplemental EIR (SEIR) analyzed a target build out development scenario equal to approximately 75% of the entitlement allocation scenario studied in the transportation, circulation, and municipal studies.
Development in excess of the allocation that was studied in the SEIR may require additional review and/or additional mitigation measures pursuant to CEQA regulations.
Projects that enter into development agreements with the City may be eligible to develop at the capacity identified in Chapter 2.2 of this Volume. Additional development density may be secured through the density bank mechanism, up to the maximum prescribed in Appendix A of this Volume, provided compliance with the General Plan density ranges can be demonstrated. Given the urban nature of the plan, compliance with the General Plan density ranges shall be determined on a gross block average basis rather than parcel basis, provided the block is owned by a single property owner at the time of development.
This section summarizes the Bridge District buildout assumptions used to prepare the infrastructure, amenity, and financing plans included in this Implementation Strategy. Additional detail on buildout assumptions is found in Appendix A.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 10
Attachment 3
716
2.2.1 Public Areas and Net Buildable Areas
Exhibit 4 depicts the location and character of public and quasi-public areas within the Bridge District as well as net buildable areas ("development blocks"). As redevelopment progresses, additional public and quasi-public areas not depicted in Exhibit 3, especially in areas west of 5th Street, may be identified and included in subsequent updates of this report. Public and quasi-public areas are described as follows:
Public Rights-of-Way: This area includes approximately 18.6 acres of roadways, bikeways, walkways, and associated areas that will be part of the public right of way. These facilities are described in Section 3 and in Volume 2.
River Walk Promenade: This area includes approximately 18.3 acres of an 0.8 mile length regional park corridor. The Promenade is described in Section 5.1.
Neighborhood Parks: Three neighborhood parks will provide approximately 3 acres of urban park space to serve most of the local needs of District residents and workers. These facilities are described in Section 5.2.
Distributed Neighborhood Recreation Features: These features are intended to provide the recreational service equivalent of a 1.5-acre neighborhood park, yet will be integrated with private development throughout the District.
These facilities are described in Section 5.3.
"No Build" Areas: These areas include public, quasi-public and quasi-private properties that are restricted from building development. No build areas include property located within flood easements, view corridors, mandated universal streets, required building setbacks, and other restricted development areas. These areas are described in Volume 2.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 11
Attachment 3
717
Exhibit 4: Bridge District Public Areas and Development Blocks Non-Build able Area
(Privately held/public access easements)
- Sidewalks
2.2.2 Buildout Assumptions
The infrastructure, amenity, and financing plans included in this Implementation Strategy were prepared utilizing the following buildout assumptions:
Maximum Bulldout: This scenario assumes that the Bridge District is developed at the maximum intensity permitted by 1 olume 1 of this Specific Plan (Table 3). Th is scenario assumes 12.5 million square feet of residential and commercial development that would support 9,378 residents and 20,828 jobs.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 12
Attachment 3
718
Table 3: Maximum and Expected Buildout Assumptions
Maximum 100% Expected 77% Development
Development lntensitv Development Program Proi~m
Net Land Total Land
Buildable Area Average Floor Building Area Commercial Residential Commercial Residential Nei,ghborhood (sqft) to Area Ratio (sqft) (sqft) (units) (sqft) (units) Core 860,933 2.82 2,427,295 1,645,295 782 1,316,236 626 Pioneer 970,547 2.73 2,650,000 1,900,000 750 1,520,002 598 Tower 2,175,043 1.37 2,972,705 954,705 2,018 763,764 1,616 Waterfront 927,074 4.26 3,950,000 2,500,000 1,450 1,999,987 1,160 Densitv Bank 500 000 290000 210
Total 4,933,597 2.53 12,500,000 7,290,000 5,210 5,599,989 4,000 Expected Buildout: This scenario assumes that the Bridge District is developed at 77 percent of the Maximum Buildout scenario. This scenario assumes approximately 9.6 million square feet of residential and commercial development that would support 9,378 residents and 16,000 jobs. Both maximum and expected buildout scenarios assume an average residential unit size of 1,000 square feet.
These scenarios represent "best guess" projections on how Bridge District buildings will be developed from a land use and intensity perspective based on:
• the planning direction provided by Volumes I and II;
• the potential developmental constraints and opportunities of specific Bridge District development blocks; and • proposed Bridge District development plans submitted to the City of West Sacramento as of October 2008 Additional detail is included in Appendix A.
Density Bank: The city will establish a "Density Bank" or entitlement bank to provide additional capacity for denser, urban-scale projects and to manage the transfer and exchange of entitlements by use. The Density Bank is a mechanism for ensuring that unused development capacity is not stranded on under-developed parcels, and left unavailable to remaining developable parcels. The Density Bank reserves or banks the difference between the Expected Buildout scenario and the Maximum Buildout scenario while providing certainty to property owners about available baseline entitlements. The city may allocate entitlements from the Density Bank to support very urban dense development and use it to monitor the mix of residential to commercial uses to ensure that infrastructure capacity/thresholds are not exceeded.
The Density Bank mechanism provides that baseline entitlements are allocated to the property for the anticipated or Expected Buildout of 9.6 million square feet or approximately 80 percent of the maximum (see Table 3). The city reserves discretion over approximately 20 percent or 2.4 million square feet which it can transfer or grant to a parcel provided that the project is consistent with the Specific Plan and does not erode or negatively impact neighborhood character as defined in Volume 1. When a block has been developed, the "left over" or excess entitlements will automatically "deposit" to the Density Bank, and be managed by the city and made available under the Bank guidelines. Owners may also exchange one type of entitlement for another (commercial or residential) by depositing and withdrawing from the Density Bank. The zoning administrator of the city may approve withdrawal from the Bank or BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 13
Attachment 3
719
transfer of entitlements within and between neighborhoods and will not condition reasonable use of it. Property owners ,ay only transfer entitlements among parcels within their ownership and within the same neighborhood. Owners may , 1ot transfer entitlements onto a parcel in excess of the 100% or maximum capacity of that parcel. The capacity of a parcel is its pro-rata share of the Maximum Buildout scenario. Conditions for participating in the Density Bank and the character of each neighborhood are covered in Volume 1 Section 3.3 and Appendix A of Volume 3.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 14
Attachment 3
720
3.0 TRANSPORTATION PLANS
This section describes how backbone transportation facilities will be developed in the Bridge District based on the Development Program described in Section 2. Facilities have been engineered to support the Maximum Buildout scenario and have been calibrated for the Expected Buildout scenario. Development above the Expected Buildout scenario may require some additional improvements, predominantly within the existing right of way.
Transportation facilities include roadways, walkways, bikeways, transit, parking and other infrastructure. These facilities are described collectively and individually in the following sections but will function as one integrated transportation system. Additional detail on transportation plans is found in Appendix B: Transportation Plan Technical Materials.
3.1 Integrated Transportation System
The Bridge District transportation system described in this section has been engineered as an integrated, multi-modal transportation system. It is fundamentally based on creating a pedestrian friendly environment. Other travel modes have been designed to provide pedestrians with safe and efficient choices for travel within the Bridge District and through the District.
This integrated approach incorporates Transportation Demand Management (TOM) strategies to achieve this objective.
The city Transportation System Plan Ordinance and Advisory Handbook will apply to this project. A Bridge District TDM Plan will be developed by the property owners and approved by the city by 2014. The Bridge District TDM Plan will incorporate strategies that emphasize efficient use of transportation infrastructure, reduced reliance on the automobile, and increased use of walking, bicycling, and transit for transportation consistent with the City Transportation Systems Management ordinance and guidelines. Additionally, alternative mode share goals will be incorporated into development agreements for owners within the project area.
The transportation system is based on a backbone street grid that is engineered for multi-modal travel. There are two types of public streets that are part of the Bridge District street grid:
Through Streets are the backbone of the Bridge District street grid. They provide multi-modal access to and through the District. These streets have been designed to accommodate public vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Certain streets have also been designed to accommodate streetcar lines and other public transit (see Section 3.5) BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 15
Attachment 3
721
Attachment 3
722
Exhibit 6: Access Streets
3.2 Walkways and Pedestrian Circulation
Walkways are areas which exclusively serve pedestrian travel. The most common types of walkways are sidewalks and pedestrian paths. Sidewalks are adjacent to the street and are located between the street and fronting properties.
Pedestrian paths are not adjacent to the street, and provide access through or between properties and amenities. Safe, convenient, and accessible walkways encourage and promote pedestrian travel and are crucial in the establishment of pedestrian-friendly developments.
Providing attractive and effective pedestrian facilities encourages walking as an attractive mode of transportation.
Walkways enhance the physical safety, comfort, and convenience of the pedestrian enviri aesthetic character and quality of the pedestrian experience.
Bridge District public walkways include pedestrian activity areas associated with through and access streets as well as the River Walk Promenade. As redevelopment progresses, additional facilities may be identified and included in subsequent updates of this report. Walkway cross-sections and standards for these facilities are described in Volume
2. Volume 2 identifies street sections where required ground floor retail uses must include awnings to provide shade and rain protection. Encroachment permits will not be required for awnings prescribed within Volume 2.
Sidewalks are divided into three distinct zones: the clear zone, furnishing zone, and building frontage zone. Each zone serves different functions and has different design requirements. The primary function of the clear zone is to accommodate pedestrian circulation. The furnishing zone accommodates public facilities and street furnishings, and the building frontage zone provides access to building frontages and serves as a transition area. The furnishing zone will be constructed with permeable materials that serve to manage Bridge District storm water. The prominence and intensity of each of these zones may vary from street to street. When distributing sidewalk width, priority is given to the three zones in the following order: clear zone, furnishing zone, frontage zone (see Volume 2 for additional detail on these zones and design standards).
Within the Core and Waterfront neighborhoods, internal universal streets, referred to also as access streets (depicted in Exhibit 6), are prescribed to provide more connectivity. These private streets mix vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians within the same travel zone. The universal streets within the Waterfront Neighborhood are required to be partially constructed with permeable materials to address Bridge District storm water requirements (See Section 4.3).
Sidewalk widths - Sidewalks are primarily intended for pedestrian use. They also function as the interface between buildings and the street, providing both connections and buffers. The design of the sidewalk and the appurtenances within are critical to its effectiveness, function, and safety. The width of sidewalks must be consistent with demand and function and at the same time, be safe and comfortable. In areas of high pedestrian activity or focused retail activity, sidewalk widths are 20 feet. The minimum sidewalk width is 10 feet.
Curb Extensions - To minimize the length of pedestrian crossings and provide adequate sidewalk width where pedestrians are likely to congregate, curb extensions will be constructed at intersections and at connections between mid-block pedestrian paths.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 17
Attachment 3
723
Furnishings - The furnishing zone includes public furnishings that enhance the pedestrian experience and serve the 'lear zone such as street trees, landscaping, street lights, transit stops, parking meters, fire hydrants, benches, bike racks, news racks, and other amenities. Seating will be provided, particularly in those areas where pedestrians are encouraged to participate or observe outdoor activities.
Pedestrian Comfort - Providing a positive pedestrian experience encourages pedestrian travel. A positive experience requires making pedestrians feel safe and comfortable. This starts with assuring that the clear zone is kept clear and free of obstructions and that transitions to other zones are smooth. The width of the clear zone is least 50% of the sidewalk width and never less than 6 feet, whichever is greater. A vertical clearance of at least 8 feet will be maintained from overhanging tree limbs, awnings, signs, or other obstructions. )
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 18
Attachment 3
724
Attachment 3
725
motorized transport (bicycle circulation is described in Section 3.6). Key vehicular circulation strategies are ·Jmmarized below for each roadway:
US 50: Regional traffic accesses the Bridge District via existing US 50 onramps and off-ramps at 5th Street. US 50 is a Caltrans facility. Through traffic to and from US 50 will be directed along 5th Street. 5th Street: This roadway will include two travel lanes in each direction, dedicated turn lanes and is intended to be the primary north-south arterial through the Bridge District. Free flow speeds are assumed to be 30 miles per hour.
Riverfront Road: Along most of its length, this roadway will include one travel lane in each direction and is intended to be a secondary north-south facility (i.e. for local vehicle traffic). The segment between Ballpark Drive and Tower Bridge Gateway will include two travel lanes in each direction as a transition to the existing roadway north of Tower Bridge Gateway. Free flow speeds are assumed to be 20 miles per hour. To encourage lower speeds, Riverfront Road will include various traffic calming measures such as textured pavement treatments, raised crosswalks, and curb extensions.
Market Street: This roadway will include one travel lane in each direction and is intended to be a primary east-west connector between 5th Street and Riverfront Road. Free flow speeds are assumed to be 25 miles per hour.
MIii Street: This will include one travel lane in each direction and is intended as a secondary east-west facility between 5th Street and Riverfront Road. Free flow speeds are assumed to be 25 miles per hour. arden Street: This roadway will include one travel lane in each direction and is intended as a secondary east-west 1acility between 5th Street and Riverfront Road. Free flow speeds are assumed to be 25 miles per hour.
Grand Street: West of 5th Street, this roadway will include two travel lanes in each direction and is intended as a primary east-west arterial that connects West Capitol Avenue and Tower Bridge Gateway with 5th Street. Free flow speeds are assumed to be 35 miles per hour. East of 5th Street, this roadway wi ll include one travel lane in each direction and is intended as a secondary east-west facility between 5th Street and Riverfront Road. Free flow speeds are assumed to be 25 miles per hour.
Bridge Street: Traffic from the US 50 westbound off-ramp will enter the Bridge District at the intersection of Bridge Street and 5th Street. Bridge Street will be an east-west facility and have two travel lanes in each direction between 5th Street and Riverfront Road. Free flow speeds on Bridge Street will be 35 miles per hour.
Automobiles will be the primary vehicles using Bridge District roadways. Table 4 summarizes automobile trip generation rates assumptions. These assumptions were used to analyze, size, and design the roadways depicted in Exhibit 5. Additional detail on these assumptions and associated traffic analyses are included in Appendix B.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 20
Attachment 3
726
Table 4: Peak Hour Automobile Trip Generation Rate Assumptions Mornino Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour
Land Use Trip Rate Percent In Percent Out Trip Rate Percent In Percent Out Residential 0.30 25% 75% 0.35 61% 39%
Office 1.55 88% 12% 1.49 17% 83%
Retail 1.03 61% 39% 3.75 48% 52%
1) "Trip Rate": Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rate for respective peak hour period (i.e., A.M. peak hour, P.M. peak hour)
2) "Percent In" and "Percent Out" represents the percentage of trips arriving and departing during the respective peak periods.
The automobile trip generation rates depicted in Table 4 are based on Institute of Transportation Engineers data that have been adjusted to reflect the specifics of Bridge District development. These adjustments include:
A 25 percent discount in automobile trip generation rates based on the 1) availability of alternative travel modes provided by transit, pedestrian facilities, and bicycle facilities, and 2) a mixed-use urban environment where housing, jobs, retail, and amenities are located in close proximity to each other.
An additional 15 percent discount for properties located within ¼ mile of propos~d streetcar stops. This proximity of, and the higher level of service provided by, this type of transit provides additional incentives for non-automobile trips.
A 25 percent discount in automobile trip generation rates for retail pass-by trips. This discount is appl ied to reflect automobile trips where retail is an intermediate destination of a primary trip (e.g., commute). This discount does not apply for automobile trips where retail is the primary destination.
Streetcar or alternate transit service is an integral component of the circulation plan. The level of service required is described in Section 3.5. The financing of transit is defined within Section 7.1 as a required "Backbone" transportation improvement in order for the roadways to support the expected development program capacity described in Section
2.2. 3.4 Parking
A key aspect of vehicular circulation will be the provision and management of parking facilities. Parking will be accommodated in the Bridge District via on-street parking (see Exhibit 8), shared parking areas, and exclusive use parking areas. Additional detail on parking facilities and strategies is included in Appendix 84. This section addresses demand projections, demand management, supply, and financing of parking for the commercial properties in the Bridge District. Residential parking is not addressed as a public resource or policy matter as it is assumed to be largely exclusive to residential developments.
Parking is an integral component of the overall transportation program for the Bridge District. It is influenced by surrounding land uses and is a major land use element itself. The parking strategy must support the overall vision for the Bridge District of providing a compact, urban, mixed use, walkable, transit-oriented environment. The primary challenge is to provide enough early structured parking to prevent spillover parking effects in residential areas and neighborhoods and meet demand for commercial uses without oversupplying parking such that it counteracts the land use, transportation, and urban design objectives. A further challenge is economic and financial: to provide enough parking to assure market acceptance and marketability of the commercial and residential properties, without overburdening the public and private financial resources available to develop and operate the parking.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 21
Attachment 3
727
·,s development takes place, it is likely that some residential parking will be integrated with structures that also serve commercial uses; the management arrangements will be worked out on a case by case basis.
Existing Conditions
Raley Field is presently the only real generator of demand for parking in the Bridge District. The bulk of parking for events and baseball games is accommodated in temporary surface parking lots that have limited improvements (gravel surfaces, chain link fencing, mobile lighting). In its Local Baseball Agreement, the city agrees to make future parking facility spaces developed within three quarters of a mile of the stadium, and to which the city has rights, publicly available for event parking if such parking or redevelopment causes a loss of stadium parking spaces.
In spite of its proximity and the ease of access for pedestrians over the improved Tower Bridge, the Bridge District does not serve as commuter parking for downtown and Old Sacramento workers. Time limitations on on-street parking and effective enforcement appear to be working to prevent commuter parking. There is an interest, on both sides of the river, that parking resources in the Bridge District be used to benefit the Bridge District and not draw commuters from the Sacramento side. As the Bridge District develops, management policies, parking pricing, and enforcement will be adapted to achieve this objective.
Parking Demand Projections
Future parking demand in the Bridge District is based on development projections using generation rates that account for a number of factors present or planned for the Bridge District:
• Shared use of parking; multiple properties using the same parking resource • Captive market effect from mixed uses
• Availability of convenient, cost effective, frequent transit service • A relatively high rate of pedestrian and bicycle commuting • Accommodations for carpooling
• An active Transportation Demand Management (TOM) program The parking demand rates were also adapted according to the phase of development. Parking demand is assumed to be highest in the first phase of development, before 40% of the area is built out, due to the more sparse development pattern, a narrower range of uses and services available, and more limited transit service. As the project evolves into a more mature urban environment with a full mix of uses, the captive market effect becomes more pronounced, transit service can improve, and parking becomes more expensive. These will have the effect of reducing demand for parking.
With later stages of development having much lower demand rates, this means that most of the parking supply must be provided earlier. Later developments will "buy in" to an existing parking supply without significantly adding to the amount required or supplied.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 22
Attachment 3
728
Exhibit 8: On-street Parking
. . '
·-~
<
• ...:..,;.;.,---=--...-,,
- Parking pc-rmitted
- Noparking
I
I
r ·'l . 1/' ·. ~ #,;>
frontPIH
a::
w
>
0 ,_
,.~ Bridge DisttictSpcciflc Pian: On-street P.arkin_g . 'i( IIA,\t~ ,r'l;t l\ • l ll{.S . ; c 11, u.1W~ :-i pt.11.11 •:•nt(' • Wt•O,,! Ho,lirr:,; Parking Management Policies
Management of the parking resource will be critical to success of the parking plan. The key elements of the management program consists of a group of policies and practices including • A minimum shared parking and maximum parking requirement • An emphasis on shared parking, by creating a pooled parking supply that is managed for the benefit of multiple properties, thereby reducing the overall amount of parking needed; • Using public financing to assist in development of the shared parking resource; • Placing limits on surface parking, allowing it only under the freeway and on an interim basis; and BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 23
Attachment 3
729
• Creating a parking authority or management entity to oversee finance and management of the parking program.
A variety of policies and practices will need to be implemented in the Bridge District, including enhanced transit service, pricing strategies, information provision, demand management techniques, enforcement practices, and frequent monitoring. They are outlined here in this segment.
Shared Parking
The basic premise of the implementation strategy is that a core or basic amount of parking will be publically financed and operated on a shared basis, so that all properties and users within the Bridge District can take advantage of it.
Rather than requiring each new development project to provide parking facilities on its site, the shared parking concept will provide a single parking structure that can be used by multiple properties and users. A minimum requirement for private development of one stall per thousand square feet of office space, and comparable rates for restaurant and retail uses, will be used for this first increment of parking. Only shared parking structures will be eligible for public investment.
Not every property will be able to contribute land or a structure, have a feasible garage site available, or generate enough parking demand to make improvement of a parking lot or structure feasible. An in-lieu fee option must be available for these circumstances. The amount of the fee should be proportional to the private sector share of the cost of constructing the required number of stalls in a parking structure.
Beyond this minimum, additional parking supply may be provided to meet the projected or perceived demand. This 1dditional parking supply would not be required to be shared or contributed to the pooled supply, though it could be included in the shared resource. Developers can provide this additional parking in temporary surface lots or in structures, but no public financing would be available to assist in paying for this additional increment of parking.
Minimum and maximum parking standards are established in Volume 1 (see Volume 1 page 25). However, if the parking supply is provided as surface parking, it will require a conditional use permit, and the use permit would be subject to frequent review (on two to five year intervals), with no guarantee of renewal. Exceptions to the surface parking limitations would be available for short-term (less than 90 minutes) and handicapped accessible stalls, and for surface lots on property not otherwise developable (e.g., under the Pioneer Bridge approach).
TDM Measures
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) includes all policies and design features that contribute to more efficient use of transportation infrastructure, reduced reliance on the automobile, and increased use of bicycling, walking and transit for transportation. Parking management is one category within TDM and includes a variety of strategies to encourage more efficient use of parking facilities:
• Pricing. On-street parking must be priced such that commuters will use garages and parking lots, and the most convenient on-street spaces will be avai lable for short term visitors. Rates for parking in garages must be high enough to make alternative modes competitive, yet not so high as to push parking on to local and nearby streets.
• Unbundled parking. Most of the parking in the Bridge District will be provided in a separate location. Paying for parking as a separate transaction presents the opportunity to offer cash out programs, giving a rent discount or offering cash to employees if they don't drive and park.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 24
Attachment 3
730
• Wayfinding and parking information systems. In a shared parking environment, wayfinding signage that directs drivers to parking garages is critical. Information systems that inform drivers of the number and location of empty stalls that are available within a structure can also ensure more efficient use of a structure, and allow occupancy rates to approach maximum without adding time delays or congestion to the parking experience.
• Transport;;:ition_M.anagement Plans. New developments may be required to join a Transportation Management Association (TMA), provide an employee transportation coordinator, offer employees subsidies for transit passes, accommodate carpools and provide incentives, contribute to the cost of providing transit service to the worksite, and include provisions for walk and bike access. • Transit. walk. bike. and urban design. Provision of high quality, convenient, frequent transit at competitive cost is a key component of a TDM effort, and critical to reducing demand for parking. Similarly, providing a walk and bike friendly environment, based on appropriate urban design principles, will reduce the need to drive and demand for parking.
Monitoring and Enforcement.
The vision for the Bridge District will require both metered on-street parking and regular enforcement to effectively manage supply and demand for parking. Monitoring will have the further benefit of providing data about parking demand and use, identifying where more parking is needed or excess supply is available, and will also contribute to safety and security of remote parking areas.
Parking Design Guidelines
Design guidelines that provide parameters for locating entrances and requiring ground floor treatment are provided in Volume 2 page 75 "Allowable Building Frontages".
Parking Supply
Future parking supply in the Bridge District was examined at three stages of development. As the Bridge District develops, parking supply will evolve and ultimately nearly all the parking will be accommodated in parking structures.
At later stages, new development will generate less demand for additional parking due to the density and variety of land uses and quality of transit service that will be available.
The following table outlines projected total parking demand at each phase.
Table 5: Parking Supply
Parking Supply Structure Surface Curb Total
(stalls)
Phase 1 1,750 3,200 150 5,100
Phase 2 3,350 2,950 260 6,560
Phase3 4.450 350 260 5,060
The potential location of parking garages and surface lots, and the capacity of each at each stage of development, is included in the full Parking Program (Appendix B4 excerpts Urban Parking Plan).
Parking Financing
Public investment in structured parking is critical to achieving the development density necessary to support street car and transit circulation elements. The Financing Plan for the Bridge District (Section 7 .2 Table 11) indentifies the funding sources and assumptions about the public investment in shared parking structures based on per space BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 25
Attachment 3
731
construction costs and anticipated buildout of commercial space (see Section 2.2.2 Table 3). It assigns a 50% share of 1st for the required shared space per 1000 square feet of commercial to both the city and the developer. The Bridge uistrict financing plan does not include a cost estimate for public investment in shared parking as it will be driven by future commercial development. However, public investment in shared parking is a density incentive primarily financed with tax increment and as such the Redevelopment Agency must manage tax increment revenues accordingly. The financing projections assumed that for the surface parking lots, the developers would be responsible for the total cost.
The additional cost of the ground-level commercial space for parking structures was not included in the financing plan.
Although an in-lieu fee option needs to be available, financing the required parking cannot rely solely on a fee program and tax increment investment. When development is slow, small scale or sporadic, the fee fund will likely not grow enough to undertake new construction. The city will need to consider creation of a parking authority and development fund utilizing additional sources of public and private revenue.
3.5 Transit
The integrated transportation system discussed in Section 3.1 and the vehicle trip generation assumptions discussed in Section 3.3 depend on providing a high level of transit service. This section outlines the desired transit level of service in the Bridge District and how it will be provided.
Rather than describing specific modes (streetcar or other rail versus bus or shuttle service), transit is described in terms of level of service. The desired level of transit service in Bridge District is to have service available within 3 blocks (approximately one quarter-mile) of any location (meeting operational ridership requirements), with a frequency · no less than every 15 minutes during peak hours on weekdays. The service should provide connections to the regional transportation network as well as to important local destinations. Peak hour and workday service should be augmented by baseline service during evenings and on weekends, with frequency of no less than once per hour, and by event-related service to handle crowds visiting Raley Field and other major attractions.
Streetcar and other transit service will serve the Bridge District. The Bridge District roadway grid has been engineered to accommodate potential streetcar service on the following streets: Tower Bridge Gateway, Riverfront Road, Grand Street and 5th Street. However, the desired level of service will likely be achieved with a combination of buses, van shuttles, and rail.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 26
Attachment 3
732
Attachment 3
733
Transit is also supported by design of buildings and pedestrian areas, convenient and comfortable bus stops and ·ansit waiting and boarding areas. Access to transit and incentives to use it will also be integral to the TDM program employed in the Bridge.
Some background level of service is already planned for the Bridge District. Several bus lines operate along West Capitol Avenue, within easy reach of the northern portions of the Bridge. Future service plans outlined in the enhanced service scenario in the 2006 Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) prepared by Yolo County Transportation District include two bus lines along Riverfront Road, connecting to downtown Sacramento yia the Tower Bridge. Both of these routes would operate in peak periods only, and serve primarily as commute lines for the eastern portion of the Southport area.
All of the first phase development projects designated within the Bridge District Development Area are located within
0.5 mile walking distance of the planned streetcar stop at Tower Bridge Gateway and Third Street/Riverfront Road.
This planned stop is part of the 2.5 mile initial leg of a streetcar line that links West Sacramento's City Hall and transit center with downtown and midtown Sacramento, the Capitol building, and the Sacramento Convention Center.
The Downtown/Riverfront streetcar project is currently in the preliminary design and environmental review stage. The current work phase is paid for by federal statewide transportation improvement (STIP) allocated funds, and the project is also included in the recently approved Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). A financing plan for the final design and construction phases has been outlined and approved by the policy body overseeing the streetcar project, comprised of elected officials from each of the four agencies cooperating on the project). The required Bridge financing associated with streetcar project is included within the Bridge financing plan provided in Section 7 . . 6 Bikeway Facilities
The Bridge District will accommodate bicyclist travel by on- and off-street facilities. The location and configuration of bicyclist facilities are intended to minimize trip distance, seamlessly connect with other bicyclist facilities at the District boundaries, accommodate different trip types and traveler skill levels, assist wayfinding and minimize conflicts with other travel modes and adjacent land uses.
Bridge District bicycle facilities are shown in Exhibit 10. The configuration of these facilities follows the trip orientation and mode mix of the street network. Bicycle lanes will be striped on streets intended for through-District trips (e.g., 5th, Grand west of 5th), as illustrated in the roadway cross-sections in Volume 2. The east-west streets that connect the District interior to the riverfront will be designated as bicycle routes (e.g., Grand east of 5th, Market, Garden). Bicyclists will have open access to the seven east-west connections between Riverfront and the River Walk Promenade, where the low level of vehicle traffic in these corridors makes specific bicycle designation unnecessary. Streets that are oriented to local neighborhood traffic, such as Garden, will operate at slow vehicle speeds and can accommodate bicyclists without specific designation. The River Walk Promenade will provide an off-street pathway shared by pedestrians for bicyclists travelling to this community destination.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 28
Attachment 3
734
Attachment 3
735
Wye Rall Spur: This rail spur connects the Weyerhauser parcel with the Union Pacific main line. Weyerhauser industrial '0erations were relocated from the Bridge District and the rail spur has been removed.
Union Pacific Main Line and Rail Yard: The remaining Union Pacific main line and Rail Yard are obstacles to completing the circulation improvements as designed (see Exhibits 5 and 9) and achieving the level of development anticipated in the financing plan (See Table 3). The existing rail infrastructure within the Bridge District is one element of a rail system serving the region which poses transportation, redevelopment and public safety challenges for the cities of Woodland, Davis, West Sacramento and Yolo County. These jurisdictions began partnering in 2009 to develop a phased relocation strategy for rail infrastructure including efforts to secure a $75 million congressional authorization in 2009 as the first step towards seeking federal financial assistance for the project.
The full project includes relocating the existing Yolo Shortline rail route to the west side of the Yolo Bypass through Conaway Ranch to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) main line that is located on the north side of Highway 80 with a connection point just east of Davis. This will allow for removal of the trestle that crosses the Yolo Bypass at 1-5 and will lessen the existing rail interchange traffic with UPRR in West Sacramento. Improvements planned for the interchange yard just east of the City of Davis will eliminate the need for the UPRR-SNR Westgate interchange track in West Sacramento Bridge District. The project, when completed will eliminate major rail freight traffic through the residentialjcommercial areas of Davis and the Bridge District. In the interim the city could seek Public Utilities Commission approval for additional at-grade crossings on Casey and Grand given the elimination of at grade crossings associated with previous rail removal. The relocation of the UPRR main line track and rail yard is not included within the scope of the Bridge District financing plan.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 30
Attachment 3
736
Exhibit 11: Bridge District Rail Facilities to be Removed BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 31
Attachment 3
737
4.0 MUNICIPAL UTILITY PLANS
This section describes how backbone water, sewer, and drainage facilities will be developed for the Bridge District based on the Development Program described in Section 2. Underground facilities have been engineered and sized to support the Maximum Buildout scenario (see Section 2.2: Table 3). Phasing of construction will consider the Expected Buildout scenario where possible. In general, improvements constructed underground and those which are not readily retrofitted in the future will be constructed to accommodate the Maximum Buildout scenario. Improvements such as water storage tanks, lift stations, and storm water detention facilities may be phased.
Additional detail on municipal utility plans can be found in Appendix C: Municipal Utility Plan Technical Materials.
4.1 Backbone Water Distribution System
4.1.1 Water Demand Assumptions
The backbone underground water distribution system is sized to serve domestic and fire service demands based on the Maximum Buildout scenario. It is intended that every development block in the Bridge District be served by a looped distribution system.
This system has been engineered to support the Maximum Buildout scenario based on urban demand factors. A construction phasing plan will be analyzed at the time of final design which considers the Expected Buildout scenario.
Pipelines, pumps, and tanks have been sized to accommodate water demands from urban product types (e.g., stacked "lats, towers, mixed-use), and limited irrigated landscaping. Table 6 summarizes daily water demand assumptions.
Table 6: Water Demand Assumptions
Land Use
Residential - Less Dense
Residential
Office and Retail
Restaurants
Daily Water Demand
290 gpd/du
225 gpd/du
0.075 galjsf
1.00 galjsf
These assumptions yield an Average Daily Demand (ADD) of 1.95 million gallons based on the Maximum Development scenario.
Other design assumptions used to size backbone water infrastructure includes the following:
)
• Persons per household= 1.8*
• All buildings will be sprinkled (as necessary)
• Maximum Daily Demand (MOD)= 2 x ADD= 3.9 MG
• Storage Criteria:
Operational Storage= 0.25 x MOD = 0.970 MG
Emergency Storage= 0.50 x MOD = 1.95 MG
Fire Storage = Fire Demand x Duration = 4000 gpm x 5 hours = 1.20 MGD Total Storage Requirement= 4.12 MGD
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 32
Attachment 3
738
)
*Waterfront Mixed Use Zoning: 2.2 persons per household (1.8 persons is urban standard and applies only in the Bridge District)
4.1.2 Backbone Water Distribution System
Exhibit 12 depicts backbone water pipelines, pump stations, and storage facilities that are part of the Bridge District Water Distribution System Master Plan (see Appendix C). Studies of the Maximum Buildout scenario have not identified any additional off-site improvements to citywide water distribution systems. As redevelopment progresses, additional backbone water facilities not shown on Exhibit 12 may be identified and included in subsequent updates of the Master Plan.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 33
Attachment 3
739
Exhibit 12: Backbone Water Distribution System
- 12" - ProfX)sedV\eterMain
-a.,c:11:bon& pipe/mas depicted only, dons notdaf)ICV
lateral servioo lines.
'Cer1am now pipetnas depicted will also saNe araas
oulskfe the Bridge District
Jedevelopment
•Acfditonat new
progresses.
pipelines maybe idenl,fiEd as
~
~
'Pipe sizes will be detam1iner1 during design,
raview Md approval by the City of Wast Sacramento.
600 feet
The water pipelines depicted in Exhibit 12 are sized to accommodate maximum buildout of the Bridge District. The Bridge District water distribution system will ultimately include two new water storage tanks and pump stations. The principle purpose of storage is to provide a reserve supply of water for operational equalization, emergency needs, and fire events. One 3 million gallon storage tank and pump station will be immediately constructed in order to accommodate initial phases of development. The location of this facility is depicted in Exhibit 12. This storage facil ity would support approximately 9 million square feet of new development assuming; 1) this program is approximately 50 percent residential and 50 percent office, and; 2) the water demand factors described in the previous section.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 34
Attachment 3
740
The second tank and pump station will be sized and constructed as necessary to support additional development, up to the Maximum Buildout scenario. The location of this storage facility has not been determined at this time. The financing plan (Section 7) does not include the cost of a second water tank. It is presumed that it will be part of a shared facility which also provides storage for areas located outside the Bridge District.
4.2 Backbone Sewer Collection System
4.2.1 Sewer Flow Assumptions
The backbone sewer collection system is sized to serve domestic sewer demands based on the Maximum Buildout scenario. It is intended that every development block in the Bridge District will be served by at least one sewer collector.
This system has been engineered to support the Maximum Buildout scenario based on urban demand factors. The city will explore opportunities to phase construction of the new sewer lift station in recognition of the differential between the Expected and the Maximum Buildout scenarios. Pipelines and pumps have been sized to accommodate sewer collection demands from urban product types (e.g., stacked flats, towers, mixed-use) based on 90% of the water demand factors summarized in Table 6. Design criteria used to calculate sewer flow rates are as follows:
Table 7: Sewer Design Assumptions
Unit Flow Rates
Land Use Type
Residential
Office/Commercial/High Rise
Retail/Restaurants
Average Flow (mgd)
<0.75
0.75-1.20
1.20-1.75
1.75-2.50
2.50-3.75
>3.75
Average Daily Flow (90% of Water
Demand)
Peaking Factors
202.5 gpd/du
0.0675 gpd/sf
0.0675 gpd/sf
Peaking Factor
3.0 2.9
2.8 2.7
2.6 2.5
• Peak Wet Weather Flows (PWWF) = Peaking Factor x ADWF • PWWF includes Infiltration and Inflow (l&I)
These assumptions yield a peak wet weather sewer flow of approximately 3.2 million gallons per day at the proposed sewer lift station based on the Maximum Development scenario.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 35
Attachment 3
741
4.2.2 Backbone Sewer Collection System
ne water backbone sewer pipelines depicted in Exhibit 13 are sized to accommodate maximum buildout of the Bridge District. Exhibit 13 depicts the backbone sewer collection system that is part of the Bridge District Sewer Collection System Master Plan (see Appendix C). Studies of the Maximum Buildout scenario have not identified any required additional off-site improvements to citywide sewer collection systems. As redevelopment progresses, additional backbone sewer collection facilities not shown on this exhibit may be identified and included in subsequent updates of the Master Plan.
Exhibit 13: Backbone Sewer Collection System
- r> - Existing~toRerraln
- ,·, - Proposed Sev,er ~
"'Ba ckbone pip~ines depided only; doesnctde:J•cvd- tateral seMce lines. -Cert am new ptpetnes depicted 'MN also setve areas
outside the Bridge District
redev
•Additonal
efopment
new
progresses.
pips/ioos may be ldent1fiBd as 1/ _/ ~
"Pipe saes will be delermined durlng design,
review and approval by the Qty of West Sacramento.
~\ ~ 0 I TCWM Bridge GalllWIIY
it"' ~"'
,..<>'
600 feet
'Bridge' Distr1 cfSt-lecr(fo. Pi.an :~·aadi:'bo~-fei S~Wer 10\stributiot{Sys'iem··! 7 -~,1 1- 'SF R.1..\c,r?f'1tP~'l~ 1, uR~ ) 1"'•~-r'\f1J1.i,-::d ),:,r=-rr;:1::mt' , ; :,,~fKIIR'~ ll!,.t,; __ · ::- _ _ ~. · -_ • ' _.~ ...... -~-~- I 1e backbone collection system includes a system of sewer trunk lines which gravity flow to a new sewer lift station.
The flow is then pumped to an existing 18" sewer force main which originates at the Jefferson Pump Station and BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 36
Attachment 3
742
)
ultimately ties into the Lower North West Interceptor. The initial phase of the new sewer lift station will need to be constructed prior to the next phase of private development in the Bridge District and is included in the Five Year Bridge District Capital Improvement Program 2009-2014.
4.3 Backbone Storm Drainage Collection System
4.3.1 Drainage Collection Assumptions
The backbone drainage collection system is sized to serve drainage demands and provide water quality treatment based on the Maximum Buildout scenario and the following assumptions:
• All drainage infrastructure will be sized in accordance with the City of West Sacramento Standard Specifications.
• Storage facilities will be sized to accommodate the 100 year storm event and maintain post development flows at pre-development levels.
• The design shall incorporate Best Management Practices to prevent pollutants from storm runoff from entering the downstream conveyance system, meeting all regulatory limitations.
4.3.2 Backbone Storm Drainage Collection System
Exhibit 14 depicts the proposed alternative for providing a backbone drainage system as part of the Bridge District Drainage Master Plan (see Appendix C). The drainage system consists of a pipel ine collection system, and measures for providing water quality treatment and attenuation of pre-project versus post-project flows to the existing downstream system. Design criteria will be dependent upon the outfall location(s) and attenuation plan. Flows are to be directed to the west, as they currently flow, therefore peak flows wi ll be attenuated to pre-development levels so that downstream infrastructure is not adversely affected.
4.3.3 Peak Flow Attenuation
Peak flow attenuation shall be accommodated through either detention and/or infiltration means. Due to the unique characteristics of the existing soils in the Bridge District, porous concrete and aggregate infiltration facilities (infiltration system) appear to be a viable alternative to reduce storm drainage flows from the Bridge District to the existing downstream facilities.
Current options include a) use of the infiltration system within the entire roadway right of way, b) use of infiltration system within the sidewalk and furnishing zone areas only, and c) detention. These options may be combined depending on feasibility, cost and maintenance considerations. The final Master Drainage Study will detail the proposed drainage system. The community services district will provide funding for routine maintenance of infiltration systems if incorporated into the Bridge District.
If required, a suitable site for the proposed storm detention basin will be determined. This alternative would provide peak flow attenuation and water quality treatment all in one facility. However, because of land requirements a detention basin may not represent the most cost effective means of attenuation. Peak flow attenuation shall be accommodated through either detention and/or infiltration means.
4.3.4 Parcel Requirements
Site development shall be required to retain a portion of its drainage flows through infiltration or other method acceptable to the city. Each parcel shall be required to detain the greater of (a) 10% of their drainage or (b) the portion BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 37
Attachment 3
743
of the drainage that cannot be accommodated by the infiltration system in the street area fronting the parcel and to •hich the parcel drains.
The drainage system for the Bridge District will require that parcel owners attenuate on-site flows to a minimum 10 percent value per acre as part of on-site development. Infiltration systems represent a viable alternative and will be required and/or incorporated in universal streets (access streets) and other on-site areas including surface parking, driveways, patios, sidewalks and other applicable locations. In areas of the Bridge District where elevations and existing soils may not be suitable for infiltration systems, storm drainage may be detained by other means, treated and discharged directly to the conveyance system.
The above measures are incorporated into the storm drainage master plan. This reflects a partial transfer of responsibility for attenuation and water qual ity treatment to the individual property owners. The individual property owners shall incorporate these measures in the site design of their properties. Parcel requirements for on-site flows include property owner responsibility for mitigation of storm water leaving their site and meeting regulatory restrictions on water quality, prior to the runoff entering the public system.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRAfEGY 38
Attachment 3
744
Exhibit 14: Bridge District Backbone Drainage System
_ ,.., - A'oposed Sloon Drain
"Badi.bone pipelines depicted only; does not dapfc'
lateral service Imes.
-Certain new pJpd·nes depicted will elso se1Ve areas
outside the Bndga District
"Additoflal new pipelines may bo identified as _........,.., _....,/1 tedevebpment progresses / "Pipe siws will bs de/ermined during design,
review and approval by the City of West Sacramento
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
wer Bridge Galow
I
a::
IJ.J
.::>
600 feet
39 Attachment 3
745
5.0 PARKS AND OTHER RECREATIONAL
ELEMENTS
This section describes how parks and other recreational amenities will be developed in the Bridge District based on the
9.6 million-square-foot Development Program described in Section 2. Development of the Park amenities in the Bridge District, the River Walk Promenade, three neighborhood parks, and distributed neighborhood recreational features, will be phased to correspond to development levels. Additional detail can be found in Appendix D: Parks and Other Recreational Amenities Technical Materials. Development in excess of 9.6 million square feet will trigger re-evaluation of recreation facility and service needs, an update of the development program and adjustment of funding and project delivery schedules.
5.1 River Walk Promenade
The defining feature of the Bridge District is its 0.8-mile frontage along the Sacramento River, from the Tower Bridge to just south of the Pioneer Bridge. The principal public recreational amenity in the Bridge District will be the River Walk Promenade which will extend along the length of the riverfront (Exhibit 15).
The River Walk Promenade is part of a larger complex of existing and planned community-scale recreational facilities, that line both sides of the Sacramento River. The Promenade will be an extension of the existing River Walk Park, 1ocated north of the Tower Bridge.
The River Walk Promenade will provide access to the river's edge, a trail connection into/out of the Bridge District, and a place for passive recreation and special events. Key features are described as follows and shown in Exhibit 15.
Additional detail is included in Appendix D.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 40
Attachment 3
746
Exhibit 15: Bridge District Park Plan
Nei9truombod PaFb ,nd Open Space
-lron-sParl.
a:
w
>
Q::
0 ffi
- - - - - -
Bridge District S-peci'f1c Plan: Park Developnwnt Prograrn · ~ .J\ i\r.:h ·eiu , • LP,t:i • ,. t,~.:'t :~'-½1S.m-;-it1\&!n1,.9 • ',•,·10ufl01.:Jf2t~~ . - -
Promenade: A 20-foot-wide (minimum) pedestrian and bicyclist pathway will parallel the river frontage. The decorative pathway and appurtenant furnishings/fixtures and integrated public art will be the primary feature for passive recreational activities and non-vehicular travel. Other enhancement features will be built as funds are available, including river viewing piers and overlooks, shade structures and decorative lighting, access ways to the river's edge, on-water gangway(s) with floating structures (e.g., pool barge, boat docks, etc.), cultural/environmental interpretation sites, decorative/native gardens, and other public amenities. Where consistent with the intended functions of the Promenade, recreational elements described in Section 5.3 may be installed within or adjacent to the Promenade. In addition to trail connections from the north and south, the Promenade will be linked to Riverfront Street and the interior of the Bridge District by at least 7 public access or universal streets (see Exhibit 6).
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 41
Attachment 3
747
The Plaza: This 2.15 acre plaza (.23 private/1.92 public) will be a regional day and night destination within the Bridge 1 istrict. This feature extends from the east end of Grand Street ("panhandle") into the diamond-shaped plaza shown in ~xhibit 16 and Technical Appendices D. The Plaza will include iconic art, fountain walls and illumination, public restrooms, shade structures and seating, special event infrastructure (e.g., lighting, power, water, etc.), and may include a public pavilion, fountain, kiosk or other multi-use structure within the plaza "panhandle". The buildings adjacent to and fronting the Plaza are intended to have retail uses which spill out onto the Plaza. The entire Plaza area is intended to appear as one visual space including the 15 feet of private property abutting the publicly owned area. A cross section of the Plaza is included in Volume 2 (see page 44). The Plaza is to be jointly constructed in that 1) the restroom facilities will be provided within adjacent private development; and 2) construction of Plaza public area improvements will be timed to coincide with development of the abutting retail or commercial uses. The mechanisms for implementing the public and private "fair share" financing, and completing the improvements may include in-lieu fees, dedications, easements, covenants, permits and other agreements.
Public-Private Integration and Requirements
Exhibit 16: Plaza
~ - - -
- -
-
=4
1-"' 5•~==0· ,!-c= _ 36'~-~ ~ 1-5' -
~
--- -
-1 J
0 LEGEND
D PRIVATELY BUILT
D ClTY BUILT IMPROVEMENTS
SETBACK LINE
*RESTROOMS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY
OWNERS IN THE BUILDING RESTROOMS
TO BE PUBLICALLY ACCESSIBLE.
West Sacramento Riverwalk Ex ansion Pro·ect
Covenants: The property owners abutting the Plaza will execute covenants to ensure private construction and availability of public restroom facilities.
Design of City-Constructed Structures: City-constructed structures on the Plaza shall conform to the same design guidelines which govern the other structures on the Plaza.
Public Restroom Requirement: At the city's discretion, the owners of properties abutting the plaza shall be required to ')nstruct public restrooms on their property of sufficient capacity to meet the proportionate day-to-day needs of the ,-1ublic Plaza users, including weekends and holidays, but not special events. The design, capacity and construction of the restrooms shall be to the satisfaction of the City Facility Development and Maintenance Division Manager and BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 42
Attachment 3
748
Director of Parks and Recreation, in conformance with the specifications in Appendix D. The restrooms will be maintained and operated by the city following construction.
Plaza Edge Areas: The entire Plaza hardscape, including the approximately 15-foot privately owned Plaza edge on the parcels abutting the Plaza, is to appear as one visual space which will require public private coordination of design and materials at the time the first private uses or public area is designed. Either the city or property owners may assume responsibility to deliver the entire Plaza hardscape improvements. Appropriate mechanisms will be established to provide reimbursement to the constructing party from the non-constructing party. If the city constructs the improvements, abutting owners will purchase such edge area improvements from the city prior to merging edge areas into their parcels. Additionally, the abutting owners shall provide public utility easements for the edge areas to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Alternatively, the city may require proportionate reimbursement for its costs of construction of the edge areas and the grant of access and public utility easements as a condition of approval of a subdivision map or any other land use or building permit approval.
Utility Trenching Polley: Where digging, trenching or cutting is necessary for public utility purposes for the benefit of abutting owners, the city will not be required to allow this work on city property in the Plaza area.
Exhibit 16.2: Plaza
Plaza Ownership
5.2 Neighborhood Parks
LEGEND
D PRIVATELY BUILT
D ACOUISTION DEVELOPABLE
ACQUISTION NON--OEVELOPABLE
SETBACK LINE
West Sacramento Riverwalk Expansion Project
There are three public neighborhood parks planned within the Bridge District {Exhibit 15). These urban parks are intended to serve the needs of District residents and workers. Appendix D provides a detai led description of the program for designing these facilities.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 43
Attachment 3
749
Ironworks Park: This one acre park will be located in the Tower neighborhood on Ballpark around the new municipal ·,ater tank and pump facility. The park will include features intended to meet the active and passive needs of residents ... nd workers within walking distance of the site.
"Core" Park: This one-acre-minimum park will be located in the Core neighborhood (tentatively planned for a cityowned site). This park will provide year-round, small-scale active recreation features for a broad range of ages and capabilities.
Garden Park: This 0.6 acre residentially-oriented park will be located in the Pioneer neighborhood within the Garden roadway couplet. This park will emphasize social interaction, small-scale gatherings and passive recreation in an artful neighborhood setting.
5.3 Distributed Neighborhood Recreational Elements
In addition to the River Walk Promenade and the neighborhood parks described previously, the Bridge District will include recreational amenities integrated with non-recreational development. These features may be located on public or private property, but must be accessible to the public every day from dawn to dusk (at minimum). These distributed features, in aggregate, are intended to provide the recreational equivalent of a 1.5-acre neighborhood park. The distributed elements, in combination with the three District neighborhood parks (Section 5.2) are designed to meet the minimum level of neighborhood recreation service to accommodate needs generated by 9.6 million square feet of new urban development.
The del ivery of distributed recreation features will coincide with surrounding development projects, subject to city ·ogram and design collaboration, review and approval. This approach is intended to provide flexibility in design and ,ocation, and optimize integration with private development. Appendix D describes these features in detail. )
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 44
Attachment 3
750
6.0 CIVIC CORRIDOR AMENITIES
This section describes how public amenities will be incorporated in the Grand Street and Ballpark Drive civic corridors.
Volume 1 defines the intent and purpose of these corridors, and Volume 2 established corridor streetscape standards and design guidelines. Additional detail on the amenity plans for these corridors can be found in Volume 2, page 60 and detail on street furnishings can be found in Appendix E: Civic Corridor Amenities.
6.1. Grand Street Corridor
The Grand Street corridor connects the City of West Sacramento civic center area with the River Walk Promenade. This corridor is intended to include special botanical and water features. Volume 2 defines "green" streetscape treatments and public amenities consistent with this intent.
Amenities along Grand Street will emphasize distributed neighborhood recreational elements Section 5.3), street furniture, and other facilities that:
• Provide spaces for public seating and socialization (e.g., benches, chess tables, etc.); • Provide green spaces (e.g., native/decorative gardens); • Incorporate water features (e.g., fountains);
• Promote civic identity (e.g., public art, interpretive exhibits, etc.) In general the delivery of Grand Street corridor amenities will occur through public/private dialogue and coincident with private development projects. This approach is intended to provide flexibility in the design, location, and integration of amenities with private development.
Additional information on Grand Street amenities is found in Volume 2 and Appendix E: Civic Corridor Amenities.
6.2 Ballpark Drive Corridor
The Ballpark Drive corridor connects the interior of the Bridge District with the River Walk Promenade while preserving views of Tower Bridge. Ironworks Park and Raley Field are located along this corridor. Volume 2 defines special civic streetscape treatments and special building design standards consistent with this intent.
Amenities along Ballpark Drive will emphasize distributed neighborhood recreational elements Section 5.3), street furniture, and other facilities that:
• Provide passive and active recreation (e.g., tot lots, picnic areas, etc.) • Provide pedestrian/visitor support (e.g., restrooms, seating, etc.); • Provide green spaces (e.g., native/decorative gardens); • Incorporate water features (e.g., fountains);
• Promote civic identity (e.g., public art, monuments, etc.) BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 45
Attachment 3
751
In general the delivery of Ballpark Drive corridor amenities will occur through public/private dialogue and coincident •1ith private development projects. This approach is intended to provide flexibility in the design, location, and .ntegration of amenities with private development.
Additional information on Grand Street amenities is found in Volume 2 and Appendix E.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 46
Attachment 3
752
7 .O FINANCING PLAN
Overview
This section describes how infrastructure and amenity improvements described previously in this Implementation Strategy will be financed. Those improvements are broadly grouped into two categories, "backbone" and "supplemental" as described below. The described improvements are facilities that either are public or have a public benefit component. Detail on facility master plans, cost estimates/allocations, and other assumptions can be found in:
• Appendix B: Transportation and Circulation Technical Materials • Appendix C: Municipal Utilities Technical Materials
• Appendix D: Parks and Other Recreational Elements Technical Materials • Appendix E: Civic Corridor Amenities Technical Materials Appendix F includes technical materials associated with the financing plan described in this section. These materials and this Finance Plan will be regularly updated by city departments to reflect current development conditions, cost estimates, public policy priorities, and other related factors, provided that updates are not substantive changes or policy deviations.
7 .1 Summary Costs and Allocations
7.1.1 Backbone Improvements
Redevelopment of the Bridge District is part of a larger effort to develop a West Sacramento "urban core", improve regional infrastructure and create additional regional amenities. These citywide objectives have been incorporated in the Specific Plan vision (Volume 1), the Bridge District improvement program, and this financing plan. The city and district property owners jointly developed this financing plan. The primary funding sources for Bridge District improvements will be 1) special taxes from a community facilities district (CFO) to be paid by Bridge District property owners and 2) tax increment generated within the Bridge District. Table 8 on the following page summarizes the costs of developing backbone infrastructure and amenity improvements described in the previous section. "Backbone" facilities are critical, well defined improvements necessary to support the Expected Buildout scenario (see Section 2.2) and realize the Specific Plan vision (see Volume 1). Cost estimates include design, engineering, and other related pre-construction costs. Land acquisition costs are only included for "regional" facilities and neighborhood parks. Financing and carry costs are not included. These costs have been allocated to the primary beneficiaries of improvements as follows (see Appendix Ffor additional detail):
Regional ($46 mllllon): Costs allocated to this category represent backbone improvements that are predominately of citywide or regional benefit and will occur concurrently with Bridge District development. The Bridge District includes significant regional facilities such as the River Walk Promenade and roadway arterials. These improvements represent approximately 34 percent of backbone costs.
Bridge District ($70 mllllon): Costs allocated to this category represent backbone improvements that are predominately of benefit to the Bridge District in whole or substantive part (e.g., neighborhood parks). These BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 47
Attachment 3
753
improvements include utilities, neighborhood parks, collector roads, and related improvements that represent 1pproximately 52 percent of backbone costs.
Parcel ($14 mllllon): Costs allocated to this category represent backbone improvements that are predominately of benefit to a specific parcel or small set of parcels. These improvements include sidewalks, universal streets and other parcel level infrastructure and represent approximately 10 percent of backbone costs.
Other ($6 mllllon): Costs allocated to this category represent backbone improvements that are predominately of benefit to a parcel or set of parcels outside of the Bridge District. Improvements include certain roadway and utility improvements that will/may occur concurrently with Bridge District backbone improvements. These improvements represent approximately 4 percent of backbone costs.
Table 8: Backbone Improvement Costs and Allocations
Cost Allocation
TOTAL Regional Bridge Parcel Other
Improvement COST Allocation % of total Allocation % of total Allocation % of total Allocation 'lo of total Trs!!JlHJQ(!ation am:! Qiri;;ulation
Roadways and Sidewalks $65,249,369 $36,052,969 55% $11 ,570,000 18% $13,640,200 21 % $3,986,200 6% Transit and Other Circulation $11,600,000 $0 0% $11 ,600,000 100% $0 0% $0 0% Total Transportation & Circulation $76,849,369 $36,052,969 47% $23,170,000 30% $13,640,200 18% $3,986,200 5% Municipal Utilities
Water $6,757,000 $0 0% $6,632,000 98% $0 0% $125,000 2% Sanitary Sewer $5,160,000 $0 0% $5,160,000 100% $0 0% $0 0% Storm Drainage $8,666,400 $0 0% $7,373,920 85% $0 0% $ 1,292,480 15% Joint Trench $1,510,000 $0 0% $1 ,310,000 87% $0 0% $200,000 13% Total Municipal Utilities $22,093,400 $0 0% $20,475,920 93% $0 0% $1,617,480 7% Ps!rls!ii !;!nd Oth~c Eublic SpaQ~!ii
Riverfront Promenade $19,681,520 $9,840,760 50% $9,840,760 50% $0 0% $0 0% Neighborhood Parks $16,734,416 $0 0% $16,734,416 100% $0 0% $0 0% Total Parks and Public Spaces $36,415,936 $9,840,760 27% $26,575,176 73% $0 0% $0 0% TOTAL BACKBONE FACILITIES $135,358,705 $45,893,729 34% $70,221,096 52% $13,640,200 10% $5,603,680 4%
7.1.2 Supplemental Improvements
In addition to backbone improvements, the Financing Plan also incorporates supplemental improvements.
Supplemental improvements are improvements that 1) represent longer term investments to augment backbone facilities, 2) are undefined because they are project specific, and/or 3) are specific to the provision of affordable housing. The financing strategy assumes substantial financing from grants for these improvements and therefore tax increment will be the primary source for required local match funds. These improvements are described as follows:
Density Incentives and Implementation Plan Gap Financing: These public investments are intended to promote high qual ity, urban development in the Bridge District consistent with the planning intent defined in Volume 1 and the Expected Buildout scenario defined in Section 2.2. These investments include structured parking, civic amenities, and extraordinary costs that may constrain development (e.g., demolition, land assembly, etc.). Supplemental projects will be considered by the city on a case by case basis and will depend on the availability of funds. As such the full ,nagnitude of these investments cannot be estimated at this time. The Five Year Capital Improvement Program (see ,ection 7.4) includes density incentive and supplemental investments for committed private development projects.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 48
Attachment 3
754
Public investment will especially be critical for initial projects since these projects will be pioneering, higher risk, and will sell/rent at discounted prices relative to comparable projects in the City of Sacramento's downtown, midtown, and Rail Yard neighborhoods (its primary market competitors). Investments may include shared parking improvements (see Section 3.6), other parcel improvements that have public benefit, and/or other facilities that meet certain public policy objectives (e.g., catalyzing redevelopment, promoting density, etc.).
Supplemental Infrastructure and Amenities: These improvements include additional facilities, beyond those included in the backbone improvement program, that 1) represent longer term public investments in regional amenities and 2) represent additional infrastructure/amenity improvements required to support development beyond that assumed in the Expected Buildout scenario. Some of these improvements are well defined while others depend on how the Bridge District will ultimately be developed. Defined supplemental investments include:
• $69 million for the West Side Rail Removal and Relocation Project (see Appendix B) • $38.9 million in additional Riverwalk Promenade improvements (see Appendix D) • $5.0 million for civic corridor improvements (see Section 6 and Appendix E) Undefined supplemental improvements may include additional infrastructure and amenity improvements (e.g., another water storage tank) if the Expected Buildout scenario is exceeded or if actual development substantively differs from the assumptions included in this scenario or the technical studies utilized to engineer/design backbone facilities.
Table 9: Supplemental Improvement Costs and Allocations Cost Allocation
TOTAL Regional Bridae Parcel Other
lmorovement COST Allocation % cltotal Allocation % of total Allocation ¾of total Allocation % of total D!;lfined lmQrQvements
Rail Removal $69,004,070 $9,004,070 13% $0 0% $0 0% $60,000,000 87% Supplemental Promenade Facilities $38,920,000 $19,460,000 50% $19,460,000 50% $0 0% $0 0% Civic Corridor Improvements $5,000,000 $5,000,000 100% $0 0% $0 0% $0 0% Prop. 1 C Parking Podium (affordable untts) $1,260,000 $0 0% $0 0% $1,260,000 100% $0 0% Total Defined improvements $114,184,070 $33,464,070 29% $19,460,000 17% $1,260,000 1% $60,000,000 53% !,Jndefined lmi;irov!lments
Shared Parking Structures (public) to be determined as redevelopment progresses; planning estimate of $59,000 ,000 based on Expected Buildout Implementation Scope Contingencies project dependent; to be determined as redevelopment progresses; considered on a case by case basis Other Supplemental Infrastructure project dependent; to be determined as redevelopment progresses Other Supplemental Amenities additional neighborhood parks/other amenities required if Expected Buildout is exceeded Affordable Housing: In August 2008, the City Council adopted the lnclusionary Housing Credit Program for Urban Infill Areas (IHCP). The entire Bridge District Specific Plan area is covered by the IHCP, which is an implementation program of the city's lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. Residential and mixed-use projects developed within the Bridge shall comply with the IHCP. The IHCP may be obtained from the city's Housing and Community Investment Division.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 49
Attachment 3
755
7 .2 Financing Challenges, Considerations, and Approach "7.2.1 Challenges
Realizing the Specific Plan vision involves addressing two fundamental challenges:
Financing Extraordinary Costs: Redevelopment of the Bridge District involves an array of costs that are extraordinary with respect to typical infill development. These extraordinary costs primarily reflect investments necessary to: 1) deindustrialize the Bridge District (e.g., rail removal, demolition of obsolete facilities, etc.), 2) re-construct certain Regional facilities (e.g., 5th Street, Riverfront Road, etc.), and 3) accommodate affordable housing in higher density (and higher cost) building products. Financing these extraordinary costs, especially critical initial improvements, is challenging.
Developing Critical Mass: Significant early backbone infrastructure and amenity investments are required to support initial private development projects regardless of their scale. Early Bridge District projects will necessarily be pioneering, higher risk, and will sell/rent at discounted prices relative to comparable projects in the region. However, these catalyst projects are critical to creating the development momentum necessary to finance improvements and "prove" the market for Bridge District residential and commercial products.
7.2.2 Considerations and Approach
The Bridge District directly competes with residential and office space in the City of Sacramento's downtown, midtown, and rail yard neighborhoods. Urban residential and office products similar to those planned for the Bridge District exist within 0.5 to 3.0 miles of the Bridge District. This market area includes over 17 million square feet of urban office 'Jace and 4,600 urban residential units. Both products experienced significant growth during the last real estate cycle _.nd have strong demand fundamentals for continued long-term growth. As such the Bridge District is competing in an established and growing market for urban office and residential products. However, the Bridge District as a submarket has yet to be proved as a competitive location for residential and office development.
The market feasibility of Bridge District development can easily be evaluated by comparing its "Total Entitled Parcel Cost" with that of comparable development sites in downtown/midtown Sacramento (essentially areas with mid-rise entitlements). This metric is generally considered a more stable metric than those utilized in proforma studies (i.e., residual value, internal rate of return, return on equity, etc.) as its inputs are less variable with respect to short-term changes in real-estate cycles and building construction costs. Proforma metrics are useful in the latter stages of preconstruction when real-estate cycle and construction cost risks are minimized.
Total Entitled Parcel Cost includes all land development and off-parcel improvement costs exclusive of building construction costs. Building construction costs are considered "commodity" costs that will not vary substantively between downtown Sacramento and the Bridge District. Components of Total Entitled Parcel Cost are summarized as follows:
Land Costs: This cost is the total land cost for the net parcel area to be developed. It includes the costs to purchase/assemble property, demolish obsolete facilities, dedicate land (for R0Ws, easements, etc.), and finance said costs prior to building development. Bridge District land costs are less than those in downtown and midtown Sacramento given the District's current lack of infrastructure and amenities and its status as an unproven market for 'Sidential and commercial development.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRArEGY 50
Attachment 3
756
Entitlement Costs: These costs include costs to vest entitlements inclusive of impact fee, community facility district, off-site mitigation, building permitting, and other ordinary improvem~_nt costs incurred exclusive of building construction (extra-ordinary costs are assumed to be primarily funded by grants and other public sources). These costs are generally depicted as Bridge and Parcel costs in Table 9 with some fair-share contribution to Regional costs.
Comparable costs are generally lower in downtown/midtown Sacramento given its established infrastructure and amenity base.
Discount Costs: Until critical development mass is established in the Bridge District and the market proven, development in the Bridge District wi ll sell/lease at significant discount (likely 15 to 25 percent) to comparable developments in downtown/midtown Sacramento. This cost reflects the discounted value of the property based on reduced sales price/lease rates. This discount cost can be even higher if a basic amenity base is not installed prior to development and if certain blighting conditions (e.g., obsolete buildings, rail) are not addressed.
The above considerations influence the finance approach for the Bridge District. Initial market rate residential projects in the Bridge District will require "gap financing" (tax increment and grants) to be market feasible. "Gap financing" in this section is defined as investment in eligible public infrastructure and amenities including shared parking structures, frontage improvements, roadways, etc .. This financing gap represents the high cost of constructing upfront infrastructure and amenity improvements necessary to support development. Even after the Bridge District market is "proven" (and the discount cost becomes zero), Bridge District Total Entitled Parcel Costs may be somewhat higher than those in downtown/midtown Sacramento. This higher cost will be mitigated by project premiums resulting from the Bridge District's higher quality amenity base (once constructed) and closer proximity to the (improved) riverfront. At this point, market rate development will not require gap financing. Affordable residential units, however, will likely require significant gap financing during all phases of the Bridge District development.
Initial office projects in the Bridge District will likely require gap financing (tax increment and grants) to be market feasible, though less than would be required for residential projects on a per square foot basis. After the office market is proven in the Bridge District, gap financing will not be required. However, it is anticipated that the Bridge District office discount cost may not reach zero as downtown/midtown Sacramento will carry a certain lease/sales premium for users that require very close proximity to the State Capitol. This is not expected to be an issue in the Bridge District since office development would likely be market feasible even with a sales/lease discount cost of 10 percent.
In summary, the market feasibility of full Bridge District redevelopment is contingent on financing critical upfront backbone improvements described previously and achieving critical development mass as soon as possible.
8.d.ditionally. in order to realize the density incorporated in the Expected Build~E;).nario, gap financing and deosity incentives will be required. The following section describes how improvements described in Section 7 .1 will be financed.
7.3 Funding Sources
7.3.1 Existing and Potential Funding Sources
This section summarizes existing and potential funding sources to finance backbone and supplemental improvements.
These funding sources are broadly described as follows:
Project Based Funding Sources: Funding from these sources is generated by private development in the Bridge District. These sources include:
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 51
Attachment 3
757
• Community Facility District (CFD} Fi.oa!Jcing;_ The Mello Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 authorizes local agencies to establish community facilities districts to finance public improvements such as roads, utility infrastructure, and parks. The Act permits the local governing agency (in this case the City of West Sacramento) to establish a CFD and levy a special tax to finance improvements. The special tax is paid annually by property owners within the CFD. CFD formation is subject to a two-thirds vote approval by qualified voters or landowners within the proposed district.
• City lmpqg_Fees <generated within the Bridge District): These fees are collected by the city, typically at issuance of building permits, to fund new developments' consumption of municipal infrastructure and amenities. These fees are used to finance certain improvements to infrastructure and amenities defined at the time the Impact Fee is established. This source only considers impact fees generated by development within the Bridge District. For the purposes of this Financing Plan, Bridge District impact fees are assumed to be incorporated in the CFD.
• Other Private Financing: This source includes other funding provided by a developer or property owner to finance public improvements.
Redevelopment Agency and Other City Funding Sources:
• Tax Increment: This source utilizes monies from incremental growth in property taxes above a baseline value (established at Redevelopment Area formation) to finance improvements. The Bridge District is located within West Sacramento's Redevelopment Project No. 1.
• City Impact Fees (generated outside of Bridge_District}: This source includes impact fees generated by projects outside of the Bridge District but utilized for certain Bridge District improvements that are of Regional Benefit. rants: This source includes federal and state grant programs that may be used to finance certain eligible improvements (e.g., state of California Proposition 1C grant). 7 .3.2 Financing Strategy
The Bridge District financing strategy is designed to be flexible and allow for changing market conditions and improvement priorities. This will necessarily require regular updates to this Implementation Plan and especially this Financing Plan. The financing strategy has been specifically tailored to address the considerations defined in the previous section while also incentivizing quality, urban development. In particular, the proposed CFD financing mechanisms have been structured so that, where possible, the cost of backbone improvements per square foot of building area decreases as development density increases (as measured on a net FAR basis). The strategy programs the tax increment generated within the District to finance backbone aod_supplemental Improvements, Specific project commitments of Bridge District tax increment to backbone or supplemental improvements are determined by the Redevelopment Agency. The financing strategy includes mechanisms that provide for a "back-end" repayment of tax increment (invested prior to 2009) to the Redevelopment Agency after the backbone and supplemental infrastructure and amenities have been completed. Additional detail on the CFD can be found in Appendix F.
Table 10 summarizes the financing strategy for Bridge District backbone improvements. This strategy is conceptual since actual funding requirements/sources will depend on a variety of factors including public and private development needs, market conditions, public policy priorities, phasing of development, actual improvement costs (versus 0 stimates), and financing terms (i.e., bonding requirements, interest rates, etc.).
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 52
Attachment 3
758
Table 10: Funding Sources for Backbone Improvements
Backbone Facility
TransQQrta~on and Circulation
Roadways and Sidewalks
Transit and Other Circulation
Total Transportation & Circulation
Municipal Utilities
Water
Sanitary Sewer
Storm Drainage
Joint Trench
Total Municipal Utilities
Parks and Other Public Spaces
Riverfront Promenade
Neighborhood Parks
Total Parks and Public Spaces
TOTAL BACKBONE FACILITIES
as percent of total
(1) Source is Traffic Impact Fee Fund.
(2) Source is Proposition 1 C grant.
CFO
$35,943,169
$11 ,600,000
$47,543,169
$5,771,200
$1 ,203,000
$5,478,720
$1 ,257,500
$13,710,420
$14,622,828
$14,181 ,600
$28,804,428
$90,058,017
67%
Tax lncremen Impact Fees
$2,212,000 $12,013,200 (1)
$0 $0
$2,212,000 $12,013,200
$75,000 $0
$0 $0
$100,000 $0
$0 $0
$175,000 $0
$3 ,330,951 $0
$552,816 $500 ,000 (6)
$3,883,767 $500,000
$6,270,767 $12,513,200
5% 9%
Grants Other TOTAL
$12,035,000 (2j $3,046,000 (3) $65,249,369
$0 $0 $11,600,000
$12,035,000 $3,046,000 $76,849,369
$860,800 (2) $50,000 (4) $6,757,000
$3,957,000 (2) $0 $5,160,000
$1,895,200 (2 $1,192,480 (4) $8,666,400
$252,500 (2 ) $0 $1,510,000
$6,965,500 $1,242,480 $22,093,400
$1,727,741 (5) $0 $19,681,520
$1 ,500,000 (2) $0 $16,734,416
$3,227,741 $0 $36,415,936
$22,228,241 $4,288,480 $135,358,705
16% 3% 100%
(3) Include s $250,000 to be funded by Kinder Morgan; balance represents costs that primarily benefit parcels outside of the Bridge District. Funding source lo be determined. (4) Rep re sents costs that primarily benefit parcels outside of the Bndge District. Funding source to be determ ined. (5) Source os Proposition 50 grant.
(6) Source is Park Impact Fee Fund.
As depicted in Table 10, the financing strategy for backbone improvements is as follows:
• The Bridge District CFO was originally anticipated to I fund approximately $90.1 million (67 percent) of backbone improvement costs. This funding reflects owner costs for Bridge and Parcel improvements as well as fair-share costs of Regional improvements. However, the owners and the City are currently reviewing the rates in the CFO to identify whether the feasibility of development is impacted by the rate structure proposed in March 2009. The estimated revenue from CFO 27 is subject to modification. • Tax increment will fund approximately $6.3 million (5 percent) of backbone improvement costs. This funding reflects certain gap financing to support upfront backbone improvements (see Section 7.4 for additional detail).
• Impact Fees will fund approximately $12.5 mi llion (9 percent) of backbone improvement costs (a portion of Regional road costs) for regional improvements to the south of the District in Pioneer Bluff area and a portion of Tower Bridge Gateway East. This funding reflects the fair-share balance of Regional improvement for infrastructure (beyond that funded by the CFO) outside the District with primary benefit to other areas of the city. These impact fees will be generated by development outside of the Bridge District. • Grants are estimated to fund approximately $22.2 million (16 percent) of backbone improvement costs. This funding includes the Proposition 1C and Proposition 50 grant monies already secured by the city to fund certain extra-ordinary improvements in the Bridge District (see Section 7.4 for additional detail). • Other sources will fund approximately $4.3 million (3 percent) of backbone improvement costs that primarily benefit parcels outside of the Bridge District. These parcels, though outside of the Bridge District, are located within the redevelopment area. Specific funding sources will be defined at the time these improvements are required.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 53
Attachment 3
759
Table 11 summarizes the financing strategy for Bridge District supplemental_irnprovements. This strategy is considered onceptual since actual funding requirements/sources will depend on a variety of conditions. In particular, shared t,1arking, supplemental improvements, and other contingencies are project specific and will be defined as redevelopment progresses.
Table 11: Summary Funding Sources for Supplemental Improvements (ultimate funding, all advances repaid)
lmorovement
Defined lm12rovem!lnts
Rail Removal
Supplemental Promenade Facilities
Civic Corridor Improvements
Prop. 1 C Parking Podium (affordable u
Total Defined Improvements
as percent of total
Undefined lm12rovements
Shared Parking Structures (public)
Implementation Scope Contingencies
Other Supplemental Infrastructure
Other Supplemental Amenities
(1) Source is Traffic Impact Fee Funds
(2) Source is grant (undefined)
(3) Source is Private Property Transfer Tax
(4) Source is Proposition 1 C grant.
CFD
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
0%
X
X
Tax Increment lmoact Fees
$0 $9,004,070 (1)
$25,168,935 $0
$5,000,000 $0
$0 $0
$30,168,935 $9,004,070
26% 8%
X
X
X
X
X denotes that costs are project dependent and wiU be determined as redevelopment progresses.
Grants Other
$60,000,000 (2) $0
$12,870,000 (2) $881,065 (3)
$0 $0
$1,260,000 (4) $0
$74,130,000 $881,065
65% 1%
X
X
X
X
As depicted in Table 11, the financing strategy for supplemental improvements is as follows:
TOTAL
$69,004,070
$38,920,000
$5,000,000
$1,260,000
$114,184,070
100%
• The Bridge District CFO may be utilized to fund supplemental infrastructure and amenity improvements, especially if these improvements primarily benefit the Bridge District and are required to support development. • Tax increment will fund $25.2 million in supplemental promenade improvements and $5 million dollars in civic corridor improvements. Additionally, tax increment will be used to fund shared parking and implementation strategy scope contingencies and may be used to also fund a portion of supplemental investments (if necessary). These additional improvements, although undefined, are anticipated to require significant tax increment financing.
• Impact Fees will fund approximately $9 million of costs related to the Westside Rail Removal and Relocation project (a defined project in the Traffic Impact Fee program). This funding is anticipated to be utilized to leverage federal or state grant monies to implement this project. • Grants are anticipated to fund $60 million of the Westside Rail Removal and Relocation project (source is to be determined), $12.9 million in supplemental promenade improvements (source to be determined), and $1.26 million for a parking podium for affordable units (source is Proposition 1C grant). Additionally, the city will pursue available grant opportunities to fund shared parking, supplemental improvements, and other contingency projects.
• A proposed Bridge District property transfer tax is anticipated to fund $860,000 in supplemental promenade improvements. This tax would be collected upon re-sale of Bridge District property. The owners have requested that this tax be removed from the CFO.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 54
Attachment 3
760
7 .4 2014 Plan and Five Year Capital Improvement Program (2009-2014)
7.4.1 Redevelopment Efforts to Date
Since 1993, Bridge District redevelopment efforts have primarily focused on the following:
De-Industrialization: These efforts include relocation of industrial tenants (almost complete), demolition of industrial buildings (in progress), and removal/relocation of rail (in progress).
Pre-Development Planning: These efforts include preliminary engineering, design, and financing studies necessary to implement the Specific Plan. This volume summarizes the result of these studies as well as key assumptions, plans, and strategies.
Early Development: These efforts have primarily focused on the northeast and northwest portions of the Bridge District where $12 million in private, grant and city funds were utilized to construct certain infrastructure to allow for the construction of Raley Field and the Ironworks infill development of 187 residential units (including 28 affordable units).
These investments have also allowed this portion of the Bridge District to re-integrate with adjacent neighborhoods (including the West Sacramento civic center core). This area was the easiest to redevelop and is separated from the rest of the Bridge District by the Union Pacific rail line.
Current planning efforts are focused on catalyzing redevelopment of the Bridge District area east of the Union Pacific rail line. This area requires significant backbone infrastructure and amenity improvements to support initial private development projects regardless of their scale. These efforts are described in the following section. 7 .4.2 Current Conditions and the 2014 Plan
Table 12 provides a development and investment summary for expected buildout, current conditions (March 2009), and the 2014 Plan. Pursuant to the Expected Buildout scenario, the Bridge District is expected to have approximately
9.6 million square feet of development, roughly split between residential and commercial development. This development program will require an estimated $135.4 million in backbone infrastructure and amenity improvements.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 55
Attachment 3
761
Table 12: Development and Investment Summary
Expected March 2009 Coodition2 2014 Plan (stand 2014 Condition 2016+ (remaining) Buildout' alone}3
Development Program
Tolal Net Buildable Land Area (sqft) 4,933,597 4,933,597 4,933,597 4,933,597 4,933,597 Developed Buildable Land Area (sqft) 4,933,597 366,200 1,003,600 1,369,800 3,563,797 Perr:ent Developed 100% 7% 20% 28% 72%
Residential Units 4,000 196 731 927 3,073
Commercial Bui ding Area (sqft) 5,599,989 131 ,000 35,000 166,000 5,433,989 Total Building Area 9,599,989 366,200 912,200 1,278,400 8,321,589 Effective Roor to Area Ratio 1.95 1.00 0.91 0.93 2.34
Investments (In 2009 dollars)
Backbone lnfrastructu re and Amenities• $1 35,358,705 $0 $49,196,741 $49,196.741 $86.161,964 As perr:ent of total 100% 0% 36% 36% 64%
Supplemental Infrastructure & Amenities see Chapter 7 $0 #REF! #REFI see Chapter 7 1 As defined in Section 2.2 (Buildoi.t Assumptions); assumes an average of 1,000 squa-e feet per residential unit. 2 Includes approved residential units that are part of the Ironworks development {average size of 1,200 square feet). Raley Field is equivalent to 130,000 square feet of commercial building area. Does not include existing industrial and related uses that will ultimately be relocated. 3 Assumes an average of 1,200 square feet per residertial unit . 4 see Section 7
Currently, the district includes 187 approved residential units (Ironworks) and 131,000 square feet of commercial space (Raley's Field).
~'le 2014 Plan includes 731 residential units and $49.2 million in backbone and supplemental investments. Exhibit / illustratively depicts the 2014 Plan. Residential development and infrastructure and amenity improvements are clustered in three locations which will serve as "bookends" for future infill development (Fulcrum, Unger riverfront and Delta Lane). Additional private development projects and facility investments are currently being evaluated for potential inclusion in the 2014 Plan or later plans. The 2014 Plan is driven by a $23.1 grant awarded to the Bridge District as part of the state of California Proposition 1C funding program. This grant was secured by the commitment of 731 private residential units (198 affordable).
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 56
Attachment 3
762
Exhibit 17: The 2014 Plan
--- • i:::_:·:. ~~ - ~ .,........_ - r -i . ; • , ,,{~ l:. !! • '
After the 2014 Plan is implemented, the Bridge District is expected to have approximately 8,300,000 square feet of remaining development potential and $86.2 million in remaining backbone investment required.
7.4.3 Five Year Capital Improvement Program (2009 to 2014) Scope of Improvements
Table 13 summarizes the five year capital improvement program (CIP) to implement the 2014 Plan. The CIP focuses on constructing certain public backbone infrastructure and amenities necessary to support the 2014 Plan. Key investments are described as follows (see Appendix Ffor additional detail):
Reconstruction of Tower Bridge Gateway (former SR-275): This project is part of the de-industrialization of the Bridge District and will re-construct this grade-separated freeway (built to provide quick/easy access to downtown Sacramento) into a "front door" arterial roadway. The new facility will provide safe multi-modal access (auto, bike, transit, pedestrian) into the Bridge District and reconnect it with adjacent neighborhoods. These roadway improvements are also required to support construction of the Downtown/ Riverfront Streetcar project.
Riverfront Road Reconstruction: This project will re-construct this roadway from Tower Bridge Gateway to Mill Street in order to provide safe multi-modal access (auto, bike, transit, and pedestrian). 5th Street Reconstruction, Patch, and Re-striping: This project will re-construct this roadway from Tower Bridge Gateway to (future) Market Street and patch and re-stripe the roadway from Market Street to the Highway 50 onramp.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 57
Attachment 3
763
Bridge Street: This project will re-construct a portion of the US-50 off-ramp to current standards, connect 5th Street •iith Riverfront Road, and construct a new intersection at Bridge Street and the US-50 off-ramp.
Garden Street: This project will construct a new roadway connecting 5th Street with Riverfront Road to provide access to residential development that is part of the 2014 Plan.
MIii Street: Th is project will construct a new roadway connecting 5th Street with Riverfront Road to provide access to residential development that is part of the 2014 Plan.
Central Street: This project will construct a new roadway connecting Bridge Street with Mill Street to provide access to residential development that is part of the 2014 Plan.
Access Corridors: State and Garden Access/Universal Streets will be constructed between Riverfront and the temporary promenade path in order to provide public access to the river.
Municipal Utilities: Municipal utility projects included in the CIP represent improvements necessary to support early development projects as well as improvements coincident with CIP roadway improvements. These improvements include:
• A new 3.0 million gallon water tank, pump station, and water distribution pipelines; • A new sewer lift station and sewer collection pipelines; • Potentially a 2.0 acre (8 acre-feet storage) detention basin and drainage pipelines; and • Joint trench pipelines (for electric, cable, etc.).
Parks: Park projects included in the CIP represent basic amenities necessary to support early development projects.
Park improvements include:
• Garden Park: This 28,000 square foot urban neighborhood park will serve the south development node "bookend" for 2014 residential units. The park will include, turf, trees, picnic facilities, drinking fountain, and shade structures. The CIP will fund initial park improvements of $1.5 million; later phases of development will complete these improvements.
• River Wal k Promenade Path and Plaza: An approximately 4,700 linear foot shared-use (walking and biking) asphalt path will be constructed along the river with a 70 foot segment near Tower Bridge built to ultimate improvement standards (pavers, lighting, landscaping, furnishings, etc.). Additionally, a small patio will be developed in the location of the ultimate Plaza (backbone improvements only) to serve as a community gathering facility serving the northern development node "bookend" and city and regional residents.
Other Investments: Other Investments incurred to date include acquisition and removal of the Cemex and Weyerhaeuser rail spurs (including relocation of these tenants), demolition of obsolete facilities, and funding predevelopment activities necessary to implement the CIP. These investments are prerequisites to CIP roadway, utility, and park improvements.
)
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 58
Attachment 3
764
Table 13: Five Year Capital Improvement Program (2009 to 2014) Improvement Prop.1C Prop. 50
ProRQsition 1 C Cit~ Admin/Mamt $650,000 $0
TranSE!Ql::lilion and Ci[CU!ition
Roadways and Sidewalks $12.375,000 $0
Transit and other Circulation $0 $0
Total Transportation & Clreulatl, $12,375,000 $0
Municipal Utilities
Water $860,800 $0
Sanitary Sewer $3,957,000 $0
storm Drainage $1 ,895,200 $0
Joint Trench $252,500 $0
Total Munlclpal Ut/lltles $8,965,600 $0
Parks and other PuQli~ §gaces
Riverfi'ont Promenade $0 S1 ,727,741
Neighborhood Part<s $1 ,500,000 $0
Total Parl<s and Pub/le Spaces $1,500,000 $1,727,741
TOTAL BACKBONE FACILITIES $21,490,500 $1,727,741
Parking and Density Incentives $1 ,260,000 $0
BACKBONE+SUPPLEMENTAL $22,750,500 $1,727,741
Maximum Prop 1C $23,081,000
{ 1) Source Is Traffi c Impact Fee ftn:I: to be edvanced by tax 1ncr8ment (2) Advanced by Water Enterpri se Fund; to be ultimately repaid by CFO 27 (.9) Source Is Park Impact Fee Fund
Financing of Improvements
Sources of Funds
Tax lncremen CFD23 CFD27
WlrterFund
$0 $0 $0 $0
$2,212,000 $285,000 $5,253,021 $0
$0 $0 $700,000 $0
$2,212,000 $285,000 $5,953,021 $0
$75,000 $215,200 $0 $5,000.000 (2)
$0 $357.000 $0 $0
$100,000 $373,800 $2,000,000 $0
$0 $252,500 $0 so
$175,000 $1,198,500 $2,000,000 $5,000,000
$3,330,951 $0 $2,940,828 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0
$3,330,951 $0 $2,940,828 $0
$5,717,951 $1,483,500 $10,893,849 $5,000,000
$0 $0 $0 $0
$5,717,951 $1,483,500 $10,893,849 $5,000,000
Other TOTAL l,:l'l lll ctFHI t(li;,der MO!IIUI
$0 $0 $850,000
$2,633,200 ( 1) $250,000 $23,008,221
$0 $0 $700,000
$2,633,200 $250,000 $23,708,221
$0 $0 $6,151,000
$0 $0 $4,314,000
$0 $0 $4,369,000
$0 $0 $505,000
$0 $0 $15,339,000
$0 $0 $7,999,520
$500,000 (3) $0 $2,000,000
$0 $0 $9,499,520
$2,633,200 $250,000 $49,196,741
$0 $0 $1 ,260,000
$2,633,200 $250,000 $50,456,741
The Five Year CIP will be funded through a variety of sources described as follows (see Appendix Ffor additional detail):
Proposition 1C Grant: This $23,081,000 grant was awarded to the Bridge District as part of the state of California Proposition 1C funding program. This grant was secured by the commitment of 731 residential units (198 affordable).
This funding source will be primarily used to fund critical infrastructure and amenity investments necessary to support the committed residential units.
Proposition 50 Grant: This $1,727,741 grant was awarded to the city to improve a short segment of the River Walk Promenade just south of Tower Bridge Gateway.
Tax Increment: $5.7 million in tax increment investments will fund certain infrastructure and promenade improvements. Tax increment investment finance gaps where other funding sources are not available to fully fund improvements.
Community Facilities District #23: This existing Bridge District CFO was forme<:J to relocate the Cemex plant, remove associated rail spurs, and fund other early critical investments. The remaining $1.5 million in funding capacity in this CFO will be used to fund certain backbone infrastructure improvements.
Community Facilities District #27: This proposed Bridge District CFO (formation pending) is anticipated to fund $10.9 million in backbone and amenity improvements. The financing capacity of this CFO will be limited in early years since it is primarily dependent on special taxes from developed properties and currently most properties are undeveloped (and have low special tax levies).
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 59
Attachment 3
765
Traffic Impact Fee Fund: This funding source will contribute $2,633,200 to the construction of Tower Bridge Gateway ·~ast phase). Tower Bridge Gateway is a regional master plan facility serving Washington neighborhood, West Capital ...;orridor and is a major connector of development to the west with downtown Sacramento.
Park Impact Fee Fund: This funding source will contribute $500,000 to the construction of Ironworks Park. These funds were generated by impact fees from the Ironworks residential project.
Kinder Morgan: This pipeline company is obligated to pay for relocation of its petroleum pipeline under Riverfront Road as part of the roadway realignment and reconstruction project. The pipeline relocation cost is estimated to be $250,000.
Water Enterprise Fund: The Water Enterprise Fund will advance $5.0 million for construction of a water tank to serve new development in the Bridge District. This Fund will be ultimately be repaid by CFD 27.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 60
Attachment 3
766
8.0 ACTION PLAN
Adoption of the Bridge District Specific Plan by the City Council culminates three years of hard work and collaboration by property owners and city staff and elected officials. The Specific Plan provides both a strong vision and a sensfble implementation plan for further actions. Those actions are numerous, and will require continued collaboration by the public and private partners in the Bridge District. Their implementation is essential for the realization of the dense, urban, mixed use, amenity-rich river-oriented neighborhood that is the Bridge District. Table 14 below lists some of the many actions on which city staff and the property owners will be working over the next five years.
Table 14: Five Year Action Plan
• Develop and adopt architectural guidelines including requirements to incorporate distributed neighborhood park elements and sustainability ("green" guidelines).
• Apply for Silver LEED Neighborhood Development designation. • Resolution of all rights of way (ROW) and waterfront parkway dedications, relinquishments and acquisitions. • Adoption of city comprehensive parking ordinances and implementation of the structured parking financing program including in-lieu fees.
• Adoption of the street car financing plan or other transit financing mechanism • Formation of financing district for Phase 1 (2014 Plan CIP) infrastructure improvements and community services district for operations, maintenance and programming of the waterfront park, trees and other potential Bridge District infrastructure.
• Acquisition of the Plaza and Grand U Street property; execution of the mechanisms including dedications/permits/in-lieu fees/deed covenants/reimbursements associated with joint construction of the plaza and restrooms to serve the plaza.
• Timely decision-making on Westside Rail Relocation or creation of at-grade or grade-separated crossing for infrastructure improvements west of Fifth Street.
• Implementation of "urban" fees and standards including timely approval of:
1) General Plan amendments to establish urban standards for service levels, light, residential density (increase residential unit maximums to allow over 50 units per acre), and height under current Waterfront Mixed Use zoning:
2) Analyze updates to the General Plan Noise Element for urban areas; 3) Analyze and enact updates to city landscape guidelines and municipal code associated with urban tree mitigation standards;
• Implement density entitlement bank and further define monitoring of land uses and infrastructure capacity. • Develop and adopt design guidelines for Tower Bridge Gateway. • Develop and implement transportation demand management plan for the project area.
BRIDGE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 61
Attachment 3
767
CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY ELEMENT AND
BRIDGE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR:
City of West Sacramento
Community Development Department
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Project Manager: Seamus Laffey, AICP, Senior Planner
PREPARED BY:
AECOM
2020 L Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95811
Contact: J. Matthew Gerken, Project Manager
(916) 414-5800
August 2023
768
This page intentionally left blank
769
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR i Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................1 ES.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................1 ES.2 Project Overview .................................................................................................................................1 ES.3 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................2 ES.4 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...........................................................................................2 ES.4.1 Summary of Project Impacts ..............................................................................................3 ES.4.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts .................................................................................3 ES.5 Alternatives ..........................................................................................................................................5 ES.6 Potential Areas of Controversy/Issues to Be Resolved .......................................................................6 ES.7 How to Comment on this Draft SEIR ..................................................................................................6 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 The California Environmental Quality Act ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Type of EIR .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.2 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report ................................................................ 1-2
1.1.3 Scope and Focus of this Supplemental EIR .................................................................... 1-3
1.1.4 Other Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR .......... 1-4
1.1.5 Document Format ........................................................................................................... 1-8
1.2 Intended Use of this EIR ................................................................................................................. 1-9
1.2.1 Making Effective Comments ........................................................................................ 1-10
1.2.2 Submitting Comments .................................................................................................. 1-10
1.3 Final EIR........................................................................................................................................ 1-10 2 Project Description .................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Setting .................................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.2 Location .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.2.1 Changes to the General Plan Mobility Element.............................................................. 2-2
2.2.2 Changes to the Bridge District Specific Plan ................................................................. 2-3
2.3 Required Approvals ......................................................................................................................... 2-3 3 Impact Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.0 Approach to the Environmental Analysis ........................................................................................ 3-1
3.0.1 Incorporation by Reference ............................................................................................ 3-1
3.0.2 Section Contents ............................................................................................................. 3-2
3.0.3 Determining the Level of Significance ........................................................................... 3-3
3.1 Aesthetics...................................................................................................................................... 3.1-1
3.1.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 3.1-1
3.1.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 3.1-2 770
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Table of Contents ii Draft SEIR
3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ............................................................................................ 3.2-1
3.3 Air Quality .................................................................................................................................... 3.3-1
3.3.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 3.3-1
3.3.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 3.3-3
3.4 Biological Resources .................................................................................................................... 3.4-1
3.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 3.5-1
3.5.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 3.5-1
3.5.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 3.5-2
3.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources ............................................................................ 3.6-1
3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................... 3.7-1
3.7.1 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................... 3.7-1
3.7.2 Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................ 3.7-6
3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................................................................................ 3.8-1
3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................................................... 3.9-1
3.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................... 3.10-1
3.11 Mineral Resources ...................................................................................................................... 3.11-1
3.12 Noise and Vibration .................................................................................................................... 3.12-1
3.12.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3.12-1
3.12.2 Environmental Impacts ............................................................................................ 3.12-17
3.13 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................. 3.13-1
3.14 Public Services ........................................................................................................................... 3.14-1
3.15 Recreation ................................................................................................................................... 3.15-1
3.16 Transportation/Traffic ................................................................................................................ 3.16-1
3.16.1 Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 3.16-1
3.16.2 Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 3.16-5 4 Alternatives Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 4-1
4.2 Alternatives Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 4-1 5 Other CEQA Considerations .................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1.1 Aesthetic Resources ........................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.3 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 5-2
5.1.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................. 5-3
5.1.5 Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................ 5-3
5.1.6 Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................................... 5-4
5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................................................ 5-5
5.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts .............................................................................................. 5-5
5.4 Significant Irreversible Environmental CHanges that Cannot Be Avoided if the Project is Implemented .................................................................................................................................... 5-8
5.5 Future Use of This EIR .................................................................................................................... 5-8 771
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR iii Table of Contents
6 List of Preparers ...................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 City of West Sacramento ................................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 AECOM ........................................................................................................................................... 6-1 7 References ................................................................................................................................................ 7-1
APPENDICES
Appendix A Notice of Preparation
Appendix B 2016 General Plan Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary Table Appendix C Bridge District Specific Plan EIR Executive Summary Table TABLES
Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................................... 3.3-2 Table 3.3-2 Summary of Unmitigated Construction-Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors, Maximum Construction Year ................................................................................. 3.3-4 Table 3.3-3 Existing Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors ............................... 3.3-5 Table 3.3-4 2040 Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors .................................... 3.3-6 Table 3.3-5 Net Increase of Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursor, Present2040 ........................................................................................................................................... 3.3-6 Table 3.7-1 West Sacramento GHG Emissions and GHG Efficiency: Existing and 2040 ........................... 3.7-7 Table 3.12-1 Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Damage Criteria .............................. 3.12-4 Table 3.12-2 FTA Construction Vibration Annoyance Criteria ................................................................... 3.12-4 Table 3.12-3 Structural Responses to Vibration Levels ............................................................................... 3.12-7 Table 3.12-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................................ 3.12-8 Table 3.12-5 Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration .............................................................................. 3.12-8 Table 3.12-6 Existing Traffic Noise Levels and Contour Distances .......................................................... 3.12-10 Table 3.12-7 Existing Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................................. 3.12-17 Table 3.12-8 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ..................................................................... 3.12-19 Table 3.12-9 Existing and 2040 Updated General Plan + Specific Plan 55, 60, and 65 dBA Traffic Noise Contours ...................................................................................................................... 3.12-20 Table 3.16-1 Updated Existing Traffic Counts ............................................................................................. 3.16-4
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 3.7-1 2019 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory by Sector............................................. 3.7-4 Exhibit 3.7-2 Trends in California Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Years 2000 to 2019) ................................... 3.7-4 Exhibit 3.12-1 FTA Impact Criteria for Noise ................................................................................................ 3.12-5 Exhibit 3.12-2 Existing Vehicular Transportation Noise Contours............................................................... 3.12-12 Exhibit 3.12-3 Noise Measurement Locations .............................................................................................. 3.12-16 772
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Table of Contents iv Draft SEIR
ACRONYMS AND OTHER ABBREVIATIONS
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
2016 General Plan EIR City of West Sacramento General Plan EIR ANSI S1.4 American National Standards Institute for Class 1 sound level meters AQAP air quality attainment plan
Btu/h British thermal units per hour
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL 200 meters were calibrated prior to the measurements using an LDL Model CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen Code California Green Building Standards Code
Cal-OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CALVENO California Vehicle Noise
CAP climate action plan
CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines State California Environmental Quality Act guidelines CFR Code of Federal Register
CH4 methane
City City of West Sacramento
City General Plan City of West Sacramento General Plan Update CNEL community noise equivalent level
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
dB decibels
dBA A-weighted decibel
EER Energy Efficiency Ratio
EIR environmental impact report
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FHWA-RD-77-108 Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
General Plan EIR City of West Sacramento General Plan EIR GHG greenhouse gas
H2S hydrogen sulfide
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HVAC heating, ventilation and air conditioning
I-80 Interstate 80
in/sec inches per second
773
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR v Table of Contents
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LDL Larson Davis Laboratories
Ldn day-night average sound level
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq equivalent sound level
Leq (h) equivalent sound level per hour
Lmax maximum noise level
LOS level of service
LRT light rail transit
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MLD most likely descendant
MT CO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
MTP Metropolitan Transportation Plan
N2O nitrous oxide
NA not applicable
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP notice of preparation
NOX nitrogen oxides
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
OSHA federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company
PM particulate matter
PM10 PM less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter
PM2.5 PM 2.5 microns in diameter or less
ppb parts per billion
ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
proposed project General Plan Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update RMS root-mean-square
ROG reactive organic gases
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Government
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio
SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2
sulfur dioxide
Specific Plan Bridge District Specific Plan
Specific Plan EIR Bridge District Specific Plan EIR
U.S. 50 U.S. Highway 50
VdB velocity level in decibel units
VMT vehicle miles traveled
774
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Table of Contents vi Draft SEIR
WSAFCA West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency
YSAQMD Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
ZEV zero emission vehicles
775
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR ES-1 Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
This summary is provided in accordance with Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines). As stated in Section 15123(a), “an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) shall contain a brief summary of the proposed action and its consequences. The language of the summary should be as clear and simple as reasonably practical.” As required by the CEQA Guidelines, this chapter includes (1) a summary description of the proposed project, (2) a synopsis of environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures, (3) identification of the alternatives evaluated and of the environmentally superior alternative, and (4) a discussion of the areas of controversy associated with the project.
As explained in more detail in Chapter 1, this is a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) that supplements the previously certified City of West Sacramento (City) General Plan EIR (2016 General Plan EIR) and the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (Specific Plan EIR).1
The 2016 General Plan EIR and Specific Plan EIR continue to have utility in addressing direct, reasonably foreseeable indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with implementing the General Plan and Specific Plan and cited mitigation measures continue to apply to implementation of the City’s General Plan and Specific Plan. As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, this SEIR provides the information necessary to make the previous EIRs adequate for the proposed project. The proposed project evaluated in this SEIR includes updates to the City’s General Plan and Specific Plan, as described below in more detail.
ES.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The City has proposed an update to the Mobility Element of the General Plan Update and the Bridge District Specific Plan (“the proposed project”). The City is proposing amendments to the Circulation Diagram in the Mobility Element to incorporate geometries identified in the Pioneer Bluff and Stone Lock Reuse Master Plan, the Washington Realized Sustainable Community Strategy, and the Bridge District Specific Plan, including changes in functional classification system currently depicted on pages 2-56 through 2-58 of the existing General Plan, including new Collectors, extensions to Collectors, new intersections, and one new Arterial.
Aside from changes to the Circulation Diagram and functional classification system, the City proposes certain text changes to the Mobility Element. These include revisions that reflect the City’s progress instituting changes that were proposed as a part of the original Mobility Element, as well as revisions that reflect an updated vision for transit service, and a renewed focus on strategies to reduce vehicular travel demand (vehicle miles traveled, or “VMT”) and increase the safety, convenience, and practicality of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes for reaching daily destinations. Other proposed text changes affirm the City’s commitment to involve the public in transportation improvements, particularly those that have traditionally been underserved by transportation services and the city’s disadvantaged communities. Still other changes focus on addressing gaps in pedestrian, 1 The EIR for the City’s existing General Plan was titled “City of West Sacramento General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report” and “City of West Sacramento General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report.” For this SEIR, to be clear that this was the previous EIR, the year 2016 has been added, and the previous General Plan EIR is referenced throughout this SEIR as the “2016 General Plan EIR.”
776
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Executive Summary ES-2 Draft SEIR
bicycle, and transit access, particularly in areas where development patterns are relatively more supportive of these non-vehicular travel modes.
The City proposes to amend the planned transportation facilities described in the Bridge District Specific Plan, including Volume 2, Section 2.2, the Regulating Plan, which identifies the backbone circulation infrastructure and functional classifications, as well as the “order” (combined streetscape and building design standards guidance).
The proposed amendment includes revised exhibits showing typical cross sections to augment the streetscape standards for new roadway segments. Section 3.7.6, Bicycle Network, is proposed for an update, along with Volume 3, Exhibit 5: Through Streets and Exhibit 7: Public Roadways and Traffic Signals, Exhibit 9: Transit Facilities, and Exhibit 10: Bikeway Facilities.
ES.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The proposed General Plan Mobility Element Update and proposed revisions to the Bridge District Specific Plan are consistent with the Project Objectives that were include in the City’s 2016 General Plan EIR, which was circulated for public review in August of 2016, with the following non-substantive change shown in strikeout and underline, below:
► Incorporate goals, policies, and implementation measures into the General Plan that are consistent with current state law, including changes to California Planning Law enacted since the last major update of the General Plan in 1999 2016.
► Adopt goals, policies, and implementation measures that reflect the City’s commitment to community sustainability. Specific examples include a vital central business district; compact, mixed-use developments near transit nodes; encouragement of urban infill where practical; revitalization of areas such as Stone Lock, Pioneer Bluff, and Seaway; flood protection; and passive and active recreation opportunities along the Sacramento River.
► Reflect the land use pattern and intensity set out in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) adopted by Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).
► Adopt a climate action plan (CAP) to reduce the city’s emissions of greenhouse gases and conform to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allowing the streamlining of CEQA analyses of projects that are consistent with the CAP.
Regarding the last Project Objective bullet above, the City is currently, as of the drafting of this document, in the process of preparing a climate action plan.
ES.4 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Implementation of the City’s existing General Plan would result in a number of significant impacts on the environment. At the same time, the General Plan includes many policies that are intended to minimize or mitigate these potential impacts. Table ES-1 in the 2016 General Plan EIR summarized the impacts and mitigation measures of the City’s existing General Plan (prior to the proposed update). Please see Appendix B of this SEIR, 777
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR ES-3 Executive Summary
which is the executive summary table from the 2016 General Plan EIR.2 Each of the mitigation measures identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR, as applicable, would continue to apply to projects implemented under the proposed General Plan update.
The analysis in this SEIR considers the policies set forth in the existing and proposed General Plan update in evaluating impacts and providing supplementation information necessary to address the impacts of the General Plan, as proposed for update. The analysis in this SEIR shows the updates to the General Plan and the Bridge District Specific Plan will have no new significant impacts and no increase in severity in impacts from the 2016 General Plan EIR.
ES.4.1 Summary of Project Impacts
Table ES-1 in the 2016 General Plan EIR summarized the impacts and mitigation measures of the City’s existing General Plan (prior to the proposed update) (see Appendix B). This SEIR provides information necessary to address the impacts of the proposed General Plan update.
The following environmental topic areas are not the focus of this SEIR as there would be no new significant impacts and no increase in severity in impacts (discussed further in Section 1.1.4, Other Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in this Supplemental EIR).
► Agricultural and Forestry Resources
► Biological Resources
► Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
► Hazards and Hazardous Materials
► Hydrology and Water Quality
► Land Use and Planning
► Mineral Resources
► Population and Housing
► Public Services
► Recreation
► Utilities and Service Systems
► Wildfire
► Alternatives
ES.4.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The City’s 2016 General Plan EIR identified the following areas where, after implementation of feasible mitigation measures, implementation of the General Plan may nonetheless result in impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
► Aesthetics
2 The version of the 2016 General Plan EIR executive summary table that appears as Appendix B to this SEIR includes one minor change described in the 2016 General Plan Final EIR: “As discussed under Section 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality, hydromodification plans as standard parts of MS4 permits and therefore will be required without the need for a mitting measure. Therefore, Mitigation Measure WQ-3 was deleted from the proposed Mitigation Measure(s) column in the Executive Summary table [of the 2016 Draft General Plan EIR] under Public Services on page ES-13 and under Recreation on page ES-14. 778
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Executive Summary ES-4 Draft SEIR
• Impact AES-1: Substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, including scenic vistas
• Impact AES-3: Creation of a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area
► Agricultural Resources
• Impact AG-1: Conversion of Important Farmland to nonagricultural use ► Air Quality
• Impact AQ-2: Potential to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
► Cultural Resources
• Impact CUL-1: Potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5
• Impact CUL-2: Potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
• Impact CUL-3: Disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries ► Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Impact GHG-1: Generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
• Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases
► Hydrology and Water Quality
• Impact WQ-7: Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map ► Noise and Vibration
• Impact NOI-1: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies • Impact NOI-3: Potential to result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project
• Impact NOI-4: Potential to result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project 779
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR ES-5 Executive Summary
► Population and Housing
• Impact POP-1: Potential to induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure) ► Transportation and Traffic
• Impact TRA-1: Deterioration of intersection level of service • Impact TRA-3: Increase in daily traffic volumes on arterial or non-residential collector road segments to from an acceptable level to a level greater than the maximum desirable daily volume • Impact TRA-4: Increase in daily traffic volumes on residential streets from an acceptable level to an unacceptable level
► Utilities and Service Systems
• Impact UT-3: Potential to require new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects • Impact UT-4: Potential to result in insufficient water supplies to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or a need for new or expanded entitlements The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, consistent with the 2016 General Plan EIR, found significant and unavoidable impacts related to aesthetics and visual resources, criteria air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and temporary construction noise.3
Additionally, the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to temporary vibration impacts form the operation of heavy equipment near vibration-sensitive uses, along with a range of impacts related to traffic congestion, which are no longer considered to be an impact under CEQA. Appendix C to this SEIR is the executive summary table from the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR. As with the General Plan, projects within the Specific Plan Area would be required to implement applicable mitigation measures outlined in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR and mitigation monitoring and reporting program.
Neither the proposed update to the Mobility Element nor changes to typical cross sections or transportation diagrams in the Bridge District Specific Plan would increase the severity of any of these significant and unavoidable impacts disclosed in the 2016 General Plan EIR.
ES.5 ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires the EIR to analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that (1) meet most or all of the project’s objectives; (2) substantially reduce one or more of its significant effects; and (3) are potentially feasible. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the supplement to the EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. The proposed Mobility Element updates and changes to typical cross sections and diagrams for transportation facilities in the Bridge 3 When the CEQA review was completed for the Specific Plan, it was called the “Triangle Specific Plan,” which was since changed to the Bridge District Specific Plan. This SEIR was developed based on the March 2009 Draft Supplemental Triangle Specific Plan EIR and the June 2009 Final Triangle Supplemental Specific Plan EIR, which in turn also summarize the results of a 1993 Draft and Final EIR for this Specific Plan.
780
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Executive Summary ES-6 Draft SEIR
District Specific Plan would not increase the severity of any impacts as they were disclosed in the 2016 General Plan EIR. The Mobility Element and Specific Plan updates included as a part of the proposed project would generally have beneficial environmental impacts, as presented in more detail throughout this SEIR. For example, the Mobility Element updates related to reducing vehicular travel demand or VMT would also reduce associated adverse physical environmental impacts related to criteria air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation noise. Since there are no new impacts associated with the proposed project and since there are no impacts that would increase in severity with implementation of the proposed project, this SEIR does not include any new alternatives for analysis. There are no alternatives that were determined to be infeasible at the time of drafting the 2016 General Plan EIR (Alternative Locations, Reduced Density Alternative, 2016 General Plan EIR page 4-3) that would address any potentially significant impact, and that are now feasible. Therefore, the proposed project would not make the alternatives analysis provided in Section 4.4 of the 2016 General Plan EIR inadequate, and no changes to Chapter 4 are needed.
ES.6 POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED CEQA Guidelines Section 15123 recommends that the Executive Summary include a brief summary of areas of controversy known to the lead agency. The 2016 General Plan EIR includes a list of topics where there could be potentially significant effects that would be examined in that EIR (2035 General Plan, page ES-4).
A notice of preparation (NOP) on this SEIR was prepared that requested comments from affected agencies and the public regarding the scope and content of the SEIR. The City circulated the NOP for a 30-day review period starting on July 20, 2022. The City invited additional comments on the scope of the SEIR at virtual public meeting held on August 9, 2022 at 11:00 am. Appendix A of this SEIR includes each comment received on the NOP, along with comments received at the scoping meeting. NOP comments have been considered and addressed in the respective technical sections in Chapter 3, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures,” of this SEIR and are summarized in Section 1.3, “Scope and Focus of the Supplemental EIR” of this SEIR. Topics mentioned in response to the NOP and at the scoping meeting include:
► Rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species and habitats ► Appropriate and adequate avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures for all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
► Cultural and tribal cultural resources and consultation ► Surface and groundwater quality and existing regulatory requirements ► Design for pedestrian connection
► Greenhouse gas embodied within electricity generation ES.7 HOW TO COMMENT ON THIS DRAFT SEIR
This Supplemental EIR is being circulated for a 45-day public review period. During this time, members of public and agencies can submit written comments on the Supplemental EIR to the address provided below. 781
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR ES-7 Executive Summary
Seamus Laffey, AICP, Senior Planner
City of West Sacramento Community Development Department 1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
[email protected]
Comments should be focused on the adequacy and completeness of the SEIR. “Adequacy” is defined as the thoroughness of the EIR in addressing significant adverse physical environmental effects, identifying mitigation measures for those impacts, feasible alternatives that would reduce or avoid potentially significant effects, and supplying enough information for public officials to make decisions about the merits of the project.
After the end of the public review period and as part of preparing the Final SEIR, the City will prepare written responses to all comments pertaining to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR in addressing potentially significant adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed project. The Final SEIR will consist of the Draft SEIR, comments received, written responses to comments, and a list of commenters. It may also contain additional information necessary to respond to the comments.
The City Council will consider certification of the Final SEIR prior to taking action on the proposed General Plan Mobility Element update and changes to the Bridge District Specific Plan. At that time, the Council will adopt findings regarding the disposition of each significant effect identified in the Final SEIR, as well as a statement of overriding considerations describing the specific benefits that outweigh the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impacts.
782
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Executive Summary ES-8 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank.
783
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 1-1 Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of West Sacramento (City) is proposing to update the General Plan Mobility Element and the Bridge District Specific Plan (“the proposed project”). Updates are needed to reflect changes in needs for transportation facilities, an increased focus on managing vehicular travel demand (VMT), continued emphasis on a multi-modal transportation system and supportive development patterns, a commitment to continue to involve the public in transportation improvements, particularly those that have traditionally been underserved by transportation services and the city’s disadvantaged communities, and a renewed focus on addressing gaps in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, particularly in areas where development patterns are relatively more supportive of these non-vehicular travel modes.
This Supplemental General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been prepared to provide additional information needed to address the proposed project, in addition to that which was provided in the City’s 2016 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
1.1 THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
This SEIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.).
The lead agency is the public agency with primary responsibility over the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15051(b)(1), “the lead agency will normally be the agency with general governmental powers, such as a city or county, rather than an agency with a single or limited purpose.” The City of West Sacramento, as the lead agency, directed the preparation of this SEIR to evaluate the environmental impacts of implementation of the proposed project.
1.1.1 TYPE OF EIR
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 through 15164 set forth the criteria for determining the appropriate additional environmental documentation, if any, to be completed when there is a previously certified EIR covering the project for which a subsequent discretionary action is required. According to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a) and 15163, when an EIR has been certified for a project, no subsequent or supplement to an EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole public record, one or more of the following:
(1) substantial changes are proposed in the project that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects;
(2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 784
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Introduction 1-2 Draft SEIR
(3) new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR. (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a lead agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR if:
(1) any of the conditions described above for Section 15162 would require the preparation of an SEIR, and
(2) only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation.
Section 15163 of the CEQA Guidelines also identifies that a supplemental EIR need contain only the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. A supplemental EIR may also be circulated for public and agency review by itself without recirculating the previous draft or final EIR.
This SEIR supplements the previously certified City of West Sacramento General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR) and the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (Specific Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse #2015082061 and 2008072024, respectively). The 2016 General Plan EIR and Specific Plan EIR continue to have utility in addressing direct, reasonably foreseeable indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with implementing the General Plan and the proposed updates to the General Plan and Specific Plan. Mitigation measures imposed as a part of the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR continue to apply to implementation of the City’s General Plan and the Bridge District Specific Plan.
1.1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The CEQA Guidelines charge public agencies with the responsibility of avoiding or minimizing environmental damage that could result from implementation of a project, where feasible. As part of this responsibility, public agencies are required to balance various public objectives, including economic and social issues, in addition to the environmental issues addressed in a CEQA document.
The purpose of an EIR is neither to recommend approval nor denial of a project. An EIR is an informational document used in the planning and decision-making process by the lead agency and responsible and trustee 785
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 1-3 Introduction
agencies. An EIR describes the significant environmental impacts of a project, identifies potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant impacts, and describes potentially feasible alternatives to the project that can reduce or avoid significant environmental effects. CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental effects in deciding whether to carry out a project.
If significant environmental effects are identified, the lead agency must adopt findings indicating whether feasible mitigation measures or alternatives exist that can avoid or reduce those effects. If the environmental impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable, the lead agency may still approve the project if it determines that social, economic, legal, technological, or other factors override the unavoidable impacts. The lead agency would then be required to prepare a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” that discusses the specific reasons for approving the project.
In making its decision about the proposed project, the City considers the information in this SEIR, comments received on the SEIR, and responses to those comments, information in the 2016 General Plan EIR and technical appendices, along with materials cited in the 2016 General Plan EIR and this SEIR, and the Specific Plan EIR and cited technical documents to support the analysis presented herein.
1.1.3 SCOPE AND FOCUS OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
Pursuant to Section 15143 of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may limit an EIR’s discussion of environmental impacts to specific issue areas where significant impacts on the environment may occur. This principle has been used to organize the information presented in this SEIR.
The City used a variety of information to determine which issue areas may require relatively more or less information in supplement to the General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR in order to address the proposed project. This information included review of proposed project characteristics, the General Plan and General Plan EIR, the Bridge District Specific Plan and EIR, the Mobility Element Update, and comments received from members of the public and from agencies.
A notice of preparation (NOP) on the SEIR was prepared that requested comments from affected agencies and the public regarding the scope and content of the SEIR. The City circulated an NOP for this SEIR starting on July 20, 2022 ending on August 19, 2022. In addition, the City invited additional comments on the scope of the SEIR at a virtual public meeting held on August 9, 2022 at 11:00 am. Appendix A of this SEIR includes each comment received on the NOP, along with comments received at the scoping meeting. NOP comments have been considered and those relevant to the environmental analysis have been addressed in this SEIR, as appropriate.
As a result of the review of existing information and the scoping process, it was determined that the following resource areas would have dedicated sections in this SEIR where supplementary information will be provided:
► Aesthetics
► Air Quality
► Cultural Resources
► Greenhouse Gas Emissions
► Noise
► Transportation/Traffic
786
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Introduction 1-4 Draft SEIR
1.1.4 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS NOT DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THIS
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
As discussed above, the focus of this SEIR is on those environmental topics listed above where additional information is needed as a supplement to the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR to address the proposed project. The following discussion describes other environmental topics that are not the focus of this SEIR, since the proposed changes to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan would clearly have no bearing on these environmental impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not change impacts related to the following environmental topics from what has already been analyzed in the General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, these environmental topics are briefly discussed below and are not discussed further in this SEIR.
► Agricultural and Forestry Resources: The 2016 General Plan EIR determined there would be a significant and unavoidable impact related to conversion of Important Farmland to nonagricultural uses. The 2016 General Plan EIR also determined there would be less-than-significant impacts related to conflicting with existing zoning for agricultural use and other changes that could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Neither the Mobility Element Update nor the proposed revisions to the Bridge District Specific Plan streetscape diagrams involve any changes to existing land use or zoning that would result in additional conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses or preclude agricultural uses. All of the changes to functional classifications, Circulation Diagram revisions, and proposed streetscape cross sections are in locations that were assumed to be urbanized in the 2016 General Plan EIR, and there are no areas now proposed for conservation of farmland that were not already considered in the 2016 General Plan EIR.
Proposed updates to the Mobility Element focus on reducing VMT, encouraging non-vehicular travel, and facilitating broad public input on transportation facilities. Proposed revisions to the Bridge District Specific Plan are needed to reflect changes in physical conditions and future complete street sections needed to support future infill development. Revisions to the Mobility Element would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the prior 2016 General Plan EIR with respect to agriculture and forestry resources. There is no farmland nor are there forestry resources in the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, this topic is not discussed further in this SEIR.
► Biological Resources: The 2016 General Plan EIR identified Mitigation Measures BIO-6, BIO-7, and BIO12 to ensure impacts to special-status fish and habitats, oak woodland and valley foothill riparian habitat, and invasive plants species would be reduced to less than significant. Impacts related to special-status species, special-status wildlife and their habitats, protected wetlands and other waters, native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species, are less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and adherences to local and state regulations. There would be no impacts related to conflicts with existing City ordinances protecting biological resources or adopted conservation plans. Implementation of the Mobility Element Update does not involve any land use changes in areas beyond what was considered in the 2016 General Plan EIR, such as in open space or agricultural areas. There would be no significant direct or indirect effects on special-status species, habitats, wildlife migratory corridors, or any sensitive natural communities as a result of proposed revisions to the Mobility Element. Further, the revisions to the Mobility Element would not result in direct disturbance to the physical environment, since it is focused on reducing VMT and supporting infill development. Therefore, implementation of the Mobility Element would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the prior 2016 General Plan EIR with respect to biological resources, and this topic is not discussed further in this SEIR. Similarly, the Specific Plan EIR identified 787
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 1-5 Introduction
potential impacts and mitigation measures for riparian portions of the Specific Plan Area addressing wetlands (1993 Impact 4.3-3), Swainson’s hawk nesting (1993 Impact 4.3-5), Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Impact BIO-1), construction near nesting birds (Impact BIO-2), and special-status bats (Impact BIO-3).
Since the proposed project includes changes to transportation diagrams and typical cross sections, and since these changes are not in or near riparian portions of the Specific Plan Area, the proposed project does not change any of the impact analysis or mitigation related to biological resources for the Specific Plan. ► Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources: The 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR concluded that implementation of General Plan policies and adherence to federal and local regulations would reduce impacts to geologic units and soils to less than significant. The 2016 General Plan EIR identified Mitigation Measure GEO-7 to reduce impacts to paleontological resources or sites to a lessthan-significant level and the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR included 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.20-2(a) to reduce impacts to paleontological resources or sites to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of the Mobility Element update and updated to the Bridge District Specific Plan would not change anything related to direct or indirect effects on existing geologic units, features, and soils in the city compared to that already disclosed in the previous EIRs. The Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan updates do not propose any changes that could result in seismic, geologic, or paleontological related hazards in areas beyond what was considered in the previous EIRs. Pertinent mitigation measures and applicable policies and standards would continue to apply to the implementation of the updated General Plan and updated Bridge District Specific Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR or Bridge District Specific Plan EIR with respect to geology, soils, and paleontological resources, and this topic is not discussed further in this SEIR.
► Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The 2016 General Plan EIR determined that compliance with existing regulations, and these regulations would ensure that hazardous materials are handled in safe manner.
Reasonably foreseeable spills under operational conditions would be handled according to the specifications of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan, which governs the preparation and implementation the County’s Area Plan for emergency response to chemical spills in the community, and would ensure less than significant impacts. The City also routinely consults with the school district prior to discretionary approval of new businesses and industry that use hazardous materials near existing school sites as part of the project review process. The Bridge District Specific Plan included Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 that describes compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations, Mitigation Measure TRA-8 to further ensure that there would be no significant impacts related to hazardous materials associated with buildout of the Specific Plan Area and Mitigation Measures 1993 4.19-1(a) through 4.19-1(h) to address potential impacts related to groundwater contamination. The Specific Plan EIR also includes Mitigation Measure 4.19-2(c) to address potential issues related to lead based paint and asbestos containing materials. The Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not change existing provisions regarding hazardous material sites. Impacts related to airport and aircraft hazards would continue to be less than significant based on the City’s classification as a low-risk priority. Implementation of the Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR or Bridge District Specific Plan EIR with respect to hazards and hazardous materials because projects implemented under the proposed project would implement the same federal, State, and City regulations, permits, and programs; City ordinances; and policies of the City related to hazards and hazardous materials, along with implementing Mitigation Measure TRA-8 and Mitigation Measures 1993 788
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Introduction 1-6 Draft SEIR
4.19-1(a) through 4.19-1(h), Mitigation Measure 4.19-2(c), and Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 within the Specific Plan Area. Therefore, this topic is not discussed further in this SEIR. ► Hydrology and Water Quality: The 2016 General Plan EIR determined that there would be significant and unavoidable impacts related to placing housing within a 100-year flood hazard area until the West Sacramento Levee Improvement Program is complete and the required flood protection for development protected by the levee system is obtained. The West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (WSAFCA) is a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement among the City of West Sacramento, Reclamation District 900, and Reclamation District 537. WSAFCA has completed four distinct flood risk reduction projects, amounting to approximately eight miles of levee rehabilitation that achieves 200-year flood protection. WSAFCA is working to achieve 200-year flood protection by 2030 (Dirksen, pers. comm. 2023). Impacts related to water quality, water quality standards, runoff water, altering drainage patterns, groundwater recharge/existing supplies, impeding/redirecting flood flows, flooding, and inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow are less than significant with implementation of General Plan policies and adherences to local and state regulations. Levee roads have been removed from the Circulation Diagram. Implementation of the Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not change any of the description of direct or indirect impacts in the previous EIRs related to hydrology and water quality since the proposed project is focused on changes to the Circulation Diagram and functional classification system, an updated vision for transit service, a renewed focus on strategies to reduce vehicular travel demand and increase the safety, convenience, and practicality of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes for reaching daily destinations. Hydrological impacts would not be any different than those reported under the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR. Future projects would adhere to existing State, regional, and City regulations and permits related to hydrology and drainage. Therefore, implementation of the Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the previous EIRs with respect to hydrology and water quality, and this topic is not discussed further in this SEIR. ► Land Use and Planning: The 2016 General Plan EIR determined that impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant. In the 2016 General Plan EIR, the City determined that the General Plan would not result in the physical division of existing communities, or reduce the effectiveness of any plan or regulation that protects the environment based on implementation of several policies identified in the Urban Design, Mobility, Safety, and Natural and Cultural Resources Elements. The Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not result in any physical divisions of any West Sacramento communities. There are changes in the location of certain transportation facilities, expressed both in the updated Circulation Diagram and in updated exhibits in the Bridge District Specific Plan. These changes reflect development that has occurred in the intervening period between when each of these plans was previously adopted and present day. These changes also reflect improved connections within and between neighborhoods and mixed-use districts to be made in association with new development, as well as improvements for bicycle and pedestrian connectivity. The Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update also do not conflict with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted with the purpose of reducing any environmental impact. The proposed changes are focused on improving multi-modal access; promoting infill development; reflecting progress that has been made in implementing the 2016 Mobility Element; reducing VMT, increasing the safety, convenience, and practicality of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes for reaching daily destinations; affirming the City’s commitment to involve the public in transportation improvements, particularly those that have traditionally been underserved by transportation services and the city’s disadvantaged communities; and addressing gaps in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit 789
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 1-7 Introduction
access, particularly in areas where development patterns are relatively more supportive of these non-vehicular travel modes. Therefore, implementation of the Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR. This topic is not discussed further in this SEIR. ► Mineral Resources: The 2016 General Plan EIR determined there would be no impacts to mineral resources.
The Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update do not propose any new areas for development, including areas that may otherwise be available for mineral resource extraction. Therefore, the revisions to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR with respect to mineral resources. This topic is not discussed further in this SEIR. ► Population and Housing: The 2016 General Plan EIR determined there would be a significant and unavoidable impact related to substantial population growth related to implementation of the General Plan.
The 2016 General Plan EIR also determined there would be less than significant impacts related to displacement of substantial numbers of housing and people. While the Mobility Element update includes policies to encourage and facilitate infill development, it would not propose any direct changes to existing land use designations or zoning that would result in additional population growth or any displacement.
Proposed revisions to the Bridge District Specific Plan are limited to transportation facility diagrams and typical cross sections and are unrelated to population and housing. Implementation of the Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR with respect to population and housing. Therefore, this topic is not discussed further in this SEIR.
► Public Services: The 2016 General Plan EIR concluded that there would be potentially significant adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities that would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2, CUL-3, and WQ-3 identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR. While the Mobility Element Update includes policies to encourage and facilitate infill development, it would not propose any direct changes to existing land use designations or zoning that would result in any increased demand for fire, police, school, park, or library facilities or services.
Proposed revisions to the Bridge District Specific Plan are limited to transportation facility diagrams and typical cross sections and are unrelated to public services and facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR with respect to public services, and this topic is not discussed further in this SEIR. ► Recreation: The 2016 General Plan EIR describes how General Plan policies would allow the City to prevent future growth from causing a shortfall in parks and associated deterioration of existing facilities, finding a less-than-significant impact. The 2016 General Plan EIR did identify potentially significant impacts associated with construction and operation of aquatic recreation facilities. However, this potential impact would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-6, CUL-2, CUL3, and WQ-3 identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR. The Mobility Element Update does not propose any changes to existing land use designations or zoning that would result in demand for existing or additional recreation facilities. The Mobility Element Update is intended to reduce VMT, facilitate pedestrian and bicycle travel, and encourage infill development. Proposed revisions to the Bridge District Specific Plan are 790
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Introduction 1-8 Draft SEIR
limited to transportation facility diagrams and typical cross sections and are unrelated to demand for, or use of recreational facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR with respect to recreational facilities, and this topic is not discussed further in this SEIR.
► Utilities and Service Systems: The 2016 General Plan EIR determined there would be less than significant impacts related to wastewater treatment requirements, new or expanded of water or wastewater treatment facilities, capacity of wastewater facilities, and solid waste disposal. The 2016 General Plan EIR did identify significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the need for new or expanded of stormwater drainage facilities and potential to result in insufficient water supplies. While the Mobility Element update includes policies to encourage and facilitate infill development, it does not propose any changes to existing land use designations or zoning that would require new connections to existing utilities or necessitate construction of water, wastewater, stormwater, electric, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Mobility Element update and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR with respect to utilities and service systems, and this topic is not discussed further in this SEIR. ► Wildfire: The 2016 General Plan EIR evaluated the potential for wildfire risk in Impact HAZ-8, finding a less-than-significant impact. The 2016 General Plan explains how Goal PFS-9 and Policies PFS-9.1 and 9.2, which relate to the provision of adequate fire protection facilities and services, work to avoid a significant impact. The City has been designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) as a Local Responsibility Area, and there are no moderate, high, or very high fire hazard severity zones in the city (CALFIRE 2022). The City is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. Neither the Mobility Element update nor the Bridge District Specific Plan update propose changes to the transportation system that would limit or reduce emergency access. The proposed project would have no impact on exacerbating wildfire risk and it would not result in any new significant impacts or a change to the conclusions identified in the prior 2016 General Plan EIR with respect to wildfire risk. This topic is not discussed further in this SEIR. ► Alternatives: The proposed revisions to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan do not change the findings regarding potentially significant impacts associated with implementing the General Plan and Specific Plan. As such, there is no need for any new alternative that would reduce potential impacts that have arisen based on the proposed changes. The alternatives analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR remains adequate for addressing the General Plan and Specific Plan and a supplemental alternatives analysis is not included as part of this SEIR.
1.1.5 DOCUMENT FORMAT
The content and format of this SEIR is designed to meet the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Sections 15122 through 15132). This SEIR is organized into the following chapters so that the reader can easily obtain information about the proposed project and its environmental issues:
791
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 1-9 Introduction
► The “Executive Summary” presents an overview of the project and alternatives and associated environmental impacts/consequences; a listing of environmental impacts/consequences and mitigation measures; and known areas of controversy and issues to be resolved. ► Chapter 1, “Introduction,” explains the purpose and intended use of this SEIR, provides a brief summary of the project that is being evaluated, identifies the scope and focus of this SEIR, outlines the organization of the document, and provides information on public review process. ► Chapter 2, “Project Description,” describes the regional location and setting, background and history, project objectives, project characteristics, and the relationship of the proposed project to related plans and regulations.
► Chapter 3, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures,” is divided into sections corresponding to the environmental topics listed above. The introduction to Chapter 3 explains the approach to the environmental setting, identifies the documents incorporated by reference, presents the section contents, and provides definitions of the types of environmental impacts. The impact analysis examines the impacts that would occur with implementation of the General Plan Mobility Element Update and compares the impacts of the General Plan Mobility Element Update to those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The analysis incorporates by reference applicable portions of the General Plan EIR. Each of the remaining sections is devoted to a particular environmental topic area and describes the baseline, or existing environmental setting; regulatory setting; thresholds for determining significance; and then provides an analysis of environmental impacts, identifies mitigation measures that would avoid, eliminate, or reduce potentially significant or significant impacts to a less-than-significant level, where available and feasible; and identifies the significance of the proposed project after implementation of mitigation. ► Chapter 4, “Alternatives” addresses the relative impacts of alternatives to the proposed project. ► Chapter 5, “Other CEQA Considerations,” addresses cumulative impacts, the potential for the project to foster economic or population growth, or remove obstacles to growth, discusses any significant and unavoidable adverse impacts that would result from project implementation, and discusses any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources that could be caused by the project. ► Chapter 6, “List of Preparers,” lists individuals who were involved in preparing this SEIR. ► Chapter 7, “References,” provides a bibliography of sources cited in the SEIR.
1.2 INTENDED USE OF THIS EIR
The West Sacramento Planning Commission and City Council will use the EIR to inform themselves of the impacts of the proposed project before considering a recommendation or an action on the proposed project. The Planning Commission and City Council will also consider other information and testimony submitted during deliberations on the proposed project. This EIR is prepared for the purpose of analyzing the environmental impacts of the proposed General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update. 792
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Introduction 1-10 Draft SEIR
1.2.1 MAKING EFFECTIVE COMMENTS
The City will accept written comments during the review period described below. Please focus your comments on the adequacy of the Draft SEIR.
1.2.2 SUBMITTING COMMENTS
The Draft SEIR will be available for public review for the statutory 45-day public review period, During that time, agency representatives and members of public will have the ability to submit written comments on the Draft SEIR to the address provided below.
Seamus Laffey, AICP, Senior Planner
City of West Sacramento Community Development Department 1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
[email protected]
1.3 FINAL EIR
After the end of the public review period and as part of preparing the Final SEIR, the City will prepare written responses to all environmental issues raised through the public review process. The Final SEIR will present the comments received, written responses to comments, a complete list of commenters, and revisions made to the Draft SEIR in response to comments received. It may also contain additional information necessary to respond to the comments.
The West Sacramento City Council will consider certification of the Final SEIR prior to considering any action on the proposed project. The City Council will consider the adoption of findings regarding the disposition of each significant effect identified in the Final SEIR, as well as a statement of overriding considerations describing the specific benefits that outweigh significant and unavoidable impacts. 793
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 2-1 Project Description
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is an update to the Mobility Element of the General Plan and an update to transportation diagrams and typical cross section drawings in the Bridge District Specific Plan.
2.1 PROJECT SETTING
2.1.1 BACKGROUND
Following adoption of the City’s existing General Plan in 2016 and the last update to the Bridge District Specific Plan in 2009, there have been certain changes that require updates to the General Plan Circulation Diagram and to diagrams in the Bridge District Specific Plan. Among them, the City has been coordinating with Sacramento Regional Transit regarding expansion into West Sacramento, and there has been a significant evolution in mobility technologies and services (e.g., electric bikes/scooters, car-share, Via micro-transit, etc.) that are anticipated to evolve. The City has been examining reinvestment prospects in Pioneer Bluff and Stone Lock, and conducting market analysis, infrastructure planning, financial analysis, engagement with property owners, and conceptual land use planning for these areas. There have been a number of planning and engineering analyses for the Broadway Bridge that ultimately identified a preferred alignment and location that affects the alignments Riverfront Street, 5th Street, 15th Street, and the southern portion of the River Walk, among other facilities, as well as future traffic patterns in the Bridge District Specific Plan and beyond, in addition to planning and design efforts related to the Railyards Bridge (also sometimes known as the C Street Bridge or I Street Replacement Bridge).
The City also has been in the process of developing a Climate Action Plan, which includes a focus on making it more practical and convenient for more West Sacramento residents, employees, and visitors to meet more of their daily needs without the use of a private automobile. While the existing General Plan (adopted in 2016) already had a focus on pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, it was appropriate to update some of the policy language.
Other changes to the Mobility Element are proposed to improve clarity, incorporate new information from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments, and ensure ongoing representation from traditionally underrepresented populations and the city’s disadvantaged communities.
The setting and background described in the 2016 General Plan EIR on pages 2-1 and 2-2 is still relevant, and was used to inform the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update, as well as the analysis presented in this SEIR.
2.1.2 LOCATION
The project site is the Planning Area of the city of West Sacramento in eastern Yolo County across the Sacramento River from the city of Sacramento. The city is bounded by the Sacramento River on the east and the Yolo Bypass on the west. Interstate 80 (I-80) is located in the northwestern part of the city; U.S. Highway 50/Capital City Freeway bisects the city, oriented east to west. 794
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Project Description 2-2 Draft SEIR
2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The proposed General Plan Mobility Element Update and proposed revisions to the Bridge District Specific Plan are consistent with the Project Objectives that were include in the City’s 2016 General Plan EIR, which was circulated for public review in August of 2016, with the following non-substantive change shown in strikeout and underline, below:
► Incorporate goals, policies, and implementation measures into the General Plan that are consistent with current state law, including changes to California Planning Law enacted since the last major update of the General Plan in 1999 2016.
► Adopt goals, policies, and implementation measures that reflect the City’s commitment to community sustainability. Specific examples include a vital central business district; compact, mixed-use developments near transit nodes; encouragement of urban infill where practical; revitalization of areas such as Stone Lock, Pioneer Bluff, and Seaway; flood protection; and passive and active recreation opportunities along the Sacramento River.
► Reflect the land use pattern and intensity set out in the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) adopted by Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).
► Adopt a climate action plan (CAP) to reduce the city’s emissions of greenhouse gases and conform to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 allowing the streamlining of CEQA analyses of projects that are consistent with the CAP.
Regarding the last Project Objective bullet above, the City is currently, as of the drafting of this document, in the process of preparing a climate action plan.
2.2.1 CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY ELEMENT
The City is proposing amendments to the Circulation Diagram in the General Plan Mobility Element to incorporate geometries identified in the Pioneer Bluff and Stone Lock Reuse Master Plan, the Washington Realized Sustainable Community Strategy, and the Bridge District Specific Plan. The City has proposed some edits to the description of the functional classification system currently depicted on pages 2-56 through 2-58 of the existing General Plan, including new Collectors, extensions to Collectors, new intersections, and one new Arterial.
Aside from changes to the Circulation Diagram and functional classification system, the City proposes certain text changes to the Mobility Element. These include revisions those that update existing conditions. Some of the proposals included in the existing General Plan (adopted in 2016) have now been implemented, and there is no need to identify such components in the future tense. Additional revisions have been made to underscore the importance of multi-modal access in order to meet other environmental, economic, and social objectives of the General Plan and other City policy documents. Revisions have been made to offer expanded background and updated guidance related to managing VMT. A new implementation program has been added in relation to reducing VMT. SACOG has identified that, relative to household-generated VMT, much of West Sacramento is in low-VMT areas where additional housing could help to bring the regional average VMT per capita down. This information has been added as a part of the updated Mobility Element. Mobility Element revisions reflect an 795
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 2-3 Project Description
updated vision for transit service, and increase the safety, convenience, and practicality of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes for reaching daily destinations. Proposed updates to the Mobility Element focus on addressing gaps in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, particularly in areas where development patterns are relatively more supportive of these non-vehicular travel modes.
Other proposed text changes relate to how the City will carry out transportation improvements, including revisions that reflect the City’s commitment to involve the public in transportation improvements, particularly those that have traditionally been underserved by transportation services and the city’s disadvantaged communities.
2.2.2 CHANGES TO THE BRIDGE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
The City proposes to amend the planned transportation facilities described in the Bridge District Specific Plan, including Volume 2, Section 2.2, the Regulating Plan, which identifies the backbone circulation infrastructure and functional classifications, as well as the “order” (combined streetscape and building design standards guidance).
The amendment includes additional and revised exhibits showing typical cross sections to augment the streetscape standards for new street segments. Section 3.7.6, Bicycle Network, will be updated, along with Volume 3, Exhibit 5: Through Streets and Exhibit 7: Public Roadways and Traffic Signals, Exhibit 9: Transit Facilities, and Exhibit 10: Bikeway Facilities.
2.3 REQUIRED APPROVALS
This SEIR is prepared in accordance with the requirements of CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.). The City of West Sacramento, as lead agency for the proposed project under CEQA, has the principal responsibility for certification of the SEIR and adopting and implementing the Mobility Element and Bridge District update.
796
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Project Description 2-4 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank.
797
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3-1 Impact Analysis
3 IMPACT ANALYSIS
3.0 APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Sections 3.1 through 3.17 of the City’s 2016 General Plan EIR describe impacts associated with implementation of the City’s existing General Plan. This SEIR uses this same organization, including the numbering of environmental impact sections, though, as noted above under Section 1.1.4, for several environmental topic areas, there are no new significant impacts and no increase in severity in impacts. This SEIR uses the same section numbering scheme so that it is easier to use the 2016 General Plan EIR and this SEIR in tandem to fully address the impacts of implementing the updated General Plan, including updates to the Mobility Element proposed as a part of this project.
The Bridge District Specific Plan uses a similar organization, with sections addressing each environmental topic area, and additional information necessary to address impacts of the Bridge District Specific Plan, as proposed for update by the City as a part of this project, are presented by environmental topic area, as outlined below.
Based on the analysis presented in Section 1.1.4, and given the nature of the proposed updates to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan, the focus of analysis and reporting in this SEIR is on the following topics:
► Aesthetics
► Air Quality
► Cultural Resources
► Greenhouse Gas Emissions
► Noise
► Transportation and/Traffic
Chapter 4 addresses alternatives and Chapter 5 includes a discussion of other analyses required under CEQA, including cumulative and growth-inducing impacts).4
3.0.1 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
CEQA Guidelines Section 15150 encourages incorporation by reference of previously analyzed and publicly circulated information. CEQA Guidelines Section 15150(c) states that the incorporated part of the referenced document shall be briefly summarized, where possible, or briefly described if the data or information cannot be summarized, and the relationship between the incorporated part of the referenced document and the EIR shall be described.
This SEIR hereby incorporates by reference the City of West Sacramento General Plan EIR and the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (State Clearinghouse #2015082061, #2008072024, and #1993104714). Digital copies of the General Plan EIR are on the City of West Sacramento’s website, at 4 Since the 2016 General Plan EIR was certified, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist was updated. Among those updates was the additional of questions related to energy use, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. Energy is addressed in the greenhouse gas emissions section of this Supplemental EIR. Also added as a part of these relatively recent changes was a new section with questions related to wildfire. Wildfire is addressed in this Supplemental EIR under the heading, hazards and hazardous materials, in Section 1.1.4.
Tribal cultural resources was added as a separate section in Appendix G and is addressed as a part of cultural resources in this SEIR. 798
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Impact Analysis 3-2 Draft SEIR
https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/community-development/planningdivision/general-plan-2035. The Bridge District Specific Plan and environmental documents are on the City’s website at: https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/community-development/planningdivision/planning-documents/-folder-222#docan961_1650_1838. All of these documents are also available for review at the City of West Sacramento during normal business hours:
Community Development Department, Planning Division
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
The 2016 General Plan EIR analyzed the adoption and implementation of the City of West Sacramento General Plan Update (City General Plan). The 2016 General Plan EIR provides a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts resulting from development accommodated under the General Plan and implementation of policies established within the General Plan. The 2016 General Plan EIR presents feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant and significant impacts. Each mitigation measure is a procedure, program, or technique that requires City action, either alone or in collaboration with other agencies or organizations. Some of the implementation programs are processes or procedures that the City currently administers (such as development project review), while others identify new programs or projects.
Where information from the General Plan EIR is incorporated by reference in this SEIR, the relationship of the referenced material to the analyses in this SEIR is explained in each topic-specific resource section. Updates to environmental setting, impact, and mitigation discussions in this SEIR are provided where information has been modified since preparation of the General Plan EIR that is relevant to the impact analysis. This is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, “Supplement to an EIR.”
This same approach is used for the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR – where additional environmental setting, regulatory information, or impact analysis is needed to address the adverse physical effects associated with implementing the Bridge District Specific Plan, as proposed for update, that information is presented in the material that follows.
3.0.2 SECTION CONTENTS
Sections 3.1 through 3.17 of this SEIR are each organized into the following major components:
► Existing Conditions (Regulatory Setting and Environmental Setting): This subsection describes federal, State, regional, and local plans, policies, regulations, and laws that may apply to the environmental topic under evaluation. This SEIR summarizes updated federal, State, regional, and local plans, policies, regulations, and laws that have been adopted since preparation of the 2016 General Plan EIR. This subsection also provides an overview of the existing physical environmental setting (i.e., the environmental baseline).
This SEIR provides updates to the environmental setting where changes have occurred since the adoption of the General Plan EIR.
► Environmental Impacts (Significance Thresholds, Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures):
The significance criteria (or “thresholds of significance”) are provided to define the level at which an impact would be considered potentially significant or significant in accordance with CEQA. Thresholds may be quantitative or qualitative. They may be based on agency or professional standards or on legislative or 799
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3-3 Impact Analysis
regulatory requirements relevant to the impact analysis. Generally, the thresholds of significance are derived from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended; factual or scientific information and data; and regulatory standards. This subsection also provides analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of this SEIR. The impact analysis examines the impacts that would occur with implementation of the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update.
Finally, as necessary, this subsection identifies feasible mitigation measures. For this SEIR, these mitigation measures are the same as those measures included in the General Plan EIR.
3.0.3 DETERMINING THE LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE
For each potential environmental impact identified in this SEIR, a statement of the level of significance of the impact is provided. Impacts are assessed as one of the following categories:
► No impact indicates that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project would not have any direct or indirect effects on the physical environment. It means no change from existing conditions. This impact level does not need mitigation.
► A less-than-significant impact is one that would not result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the physical environment. This impact level does not require mitigation under CEQA. ► A significant impact is defined by California Public Resources Code Section 21068 as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” Levels of significance can vary by project, based on the setting and the nature of the change in the existing physical condition. CEQA Guidelines Section 15382 defines a significant effect as a “substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. An economic or social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. A social or economic change related to a physical change may be considered in determining whether the physical change is significant.” ► A potentially significant impact is one that, if it were to occur, would be considered a significant impact as described above; however, the occurrence of the impact cannot be immediately determined with certainty. For CEQA purposes, a potentially significant impact is treated as if it were a significant impact. Therefore, under CEQA, feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to the proposed project must be provided, where necessary and applicable, to eliminate or reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts. ► A potentially significant and unavoidable impact or significant and unavoidable impact is one that would result in a potentially substantial or substantial adverse effect on the environment, and that could not be reduced to a less-than-significant level even with any feasible mitigation or project alternatives. Under CEQA, a project with significant and unavoidable impacts could proceed, but the lead agency would be required (i) to conclude in findings that there are no feasible means of substantially lessening or avoiding the significant impact in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3) and (ii) to prepare a statement of overriding considerations, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, explaining why the lead agency would proceed with a project, in spite of the potential for significant impacts. ► A beneficial impact is an impact that is considered to cause a positive change or improvement in the environment and for which no mitigation measures are required. 800
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Impact Analysis 3-4 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank.
801
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.1-1 Aesthetics
3.1 AESTHETICS
Aesthetic resources include scenic vistas or scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings within a State scenic highway. In addition, the degradation of the existing visual character of a project site or the generation of light and glare which adversely affects day or nighttime views can be an aesthetic impact.
Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” of the 2016 General Plan EIR described the character and quality of the visual resources within the city and analyzed the potential impacts from the General Plan (General Plan EIR, pages 3.1-1 to
3.1-27). Aesthetics effects of implementing the Bridge District Specific Plan are evaluated in a section addressing Aesthetics on pages 4A through 4A-17.
This section provides updated information related to the regulatory setting, environmental setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the City’s General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update, where applicable.
3.1.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
REGULATORY SETTING
The “Regulatory Setting” in the General Plan EIR remains unchanged as it relates to potential effects associated with the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update and is hereby incorporated by reference (General Plan EIR, page 3.1-1 to 3.1-9).
UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
Governor Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 in September 2013, which creates a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA. More details on SB 743 are provided in Section 3.16 of this SEIR, “Transportation/Traffic.” However, SB 743 also indicated that “Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment.” Aesthetic impacts for qualifying projects within a transit priority area are not considered significant effects on the physical environment (Public Resources Code Section 21099). Much of the area in West Sacramento north of the Deep Water Channel and south of Sacramento Avenue is in a Transit Priority Area.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is described in the 2016 General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR, pages 3.1-15 to
3.1-17), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The setting provides the general scenic character and quality of the city and summarizes panoramic views and viewer groups in the community. There has been development in the city, improvements to visible transportation and other infrastructure, flood protection improvements, and other changes, though none of those changes pertains to new impacts or any increase in severity of impacts of the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update.
The existing visual character of the Bridge District Specific Plan is described on pages 4A-1 through 4A-3. While there have been changes in the visual character of the area since that EIR was certified, none of those changes 802
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Aesthetics 3.1-2 Draft SEIR
would lead to a new impact or increase in severity of any impact in relation to the proposed updates to the transportation diagrams of the Bridge District Specific Plan.
3.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for evaluating the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and are the same as those used in the General Plan EIR. These thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the CAP, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the General Plan EIR. A significant impact to aesthetics would occur if the CAP would:
► have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
► substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcrops, and historic buildings, within a State scenic highway;
► substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or ► create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
After certification of the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, the Appendix G checklist was revised. The primary change was to differentiate urban and nonurbanized areas. For urban areas, such as the Bridge District Specific Plan Area and West Sacramento, the focus of analysis is now on conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality (State of California Department of Finance 2022). This shift in analysis would tend to reduce the level of impact related to a change in visual character compared to that described in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact AES-1: Substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings, including scenic vistas
The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.1-20 to 3.1-22) found that development under the General Plan update would result in new suburban, urban, commercial/retail, and recreational development in undeveloped areas and infill development with a similar variety of uses. However, residents and other viewers in more established, older suburban and rural developments are likely to have a much higher sensitivity to the conversion of agricultural lands and encroaching suburban development because they are accustomed to the visual environment provided by open space and agriculture. Even with the updated General Plan policies to ensure that new development would achieve a high standard of visual quality and no additional mitigation beyond the proposed 2015 General Plan update policies, the impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measures AES-3a through 3c would apply to future projects implemented under the updated General Plan, as applicable.
Under 1993 Impact 4.4-1, the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR found that the change in character from warehouses and low-scale industrial development to urban, mixed-use development would be dramatic, and the 803
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.1-3 Aesthetics
impact was considered significant and unavoidable (pages 4A-9 and 4A-10). Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a through 4.4-1c would apply to future projects implemented under the updated Specific Plan, as applicable.
The Mobility Element update does not entitle or directly facilitate development. However, it does encourage infill development in the City’s targeted reinvestment areas. However, future development would be required to meet the City’s zoning requirements, landscaping standards, regulations of any applicable specific plan or any other policies related to aesthetic resources. Changes proposed to the Bridge District Specific Plan include shifting alignments for some transportation facilities and changes to typical cross sections. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the General Plan EIR or Specific Plan EIR.
Impact AES-2: Substantial damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway.
Impacts related to damage to scenic resources were determined to result in no impact in the 2016 General Plan EIR, as there are no federal, state, or local designated scenic roadways within the West Sacramento city limits that would be affected by the General Plan update. This is discussed further in the 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.1- 23) and that analysis is hereby incorporated by reference. Under Impact AES-1: [New] of the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, the City noted that there are no scenic highways within the viewshed of the Plan Area, there will be no impacts related to scenic highways (page 4A-17). These conditions have not changed and there is no impact related to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update.
Impact AES-3: Creation of a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area
The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.1-23 to 3.1-26) found that new development allowed by the General Plan update could increase light and glare in the planning area by removing vegetation that provides shade, introducing reflective surfaces, and increasing interior and exterior nighttime lighting that would affect daytime and nighttime views. While impacts associated with light and glare can be reduced, they cannot be fully mitigated, and this impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.
The proposed Mobility Element update does not entitle or directly facilitate development. However, it does encourage infill development that could result in changes to existing light and glare. However, adherence to the City’s Zoning Code, which requires that lighting be designed, installed, and maintained to avoid light spillage and glare, and Urban Structure and Design policies would minimize impacts. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts nor impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the General Plan EIR.
In the Specific Plan EIR, light and glare effects are evaluated as a part of 1993 Impact 4.4-5 and 4.4-6, finding a less than significant impact for glare with the application of Mitigation Measure 4.4-5. Mitigation Measures 4.4- 6a and 6(b) are imposed to address impacts related to light. Proposed changes in the alignment of streets included as a part of the proposed Bridge District Specific Plan update are in undeveloped areas, and street lighting associated with these facilities would have no impact on adjacent light sensitive uses. There is no change in impact associated with proposed Bridge District Specific Plan update compared to that addressed in the existing Specific Plan EIR.
804
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Aesthetics 3.1-4 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
805
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.2-1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of this SEIR, there is no change in impact for the proposed project compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR. 806
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Agricultural and Forestry Resources 3.2-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
807
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.3-1 Air Quality
3.3 AIR QUALITY
Air quality is defined by the concentration of pollutants related to human and environmental health.
Concentrations of air pollutants are determined by the rate and location of pollutant emissions released by pollution sources, and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, and sunlight. Therefore, ambient air quality conditions within an air basin are influenced by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the amount of air pollutant emissions released by air pollutant sources.
Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” of the General Plan EIR (pages 3.3-1 to 3.3-29) described the existing air quality conditions, summarized applicable regulations, and analyzed the potential short-term construction and long-term operational air quality impacts of the General Plan. That information is hereby incorporated by reference, and summarized in the “Executive Summary” of this SEIR.
This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the City’s General Plan Mobility Element Update, where applicable.
3.3.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
REGULATORY SETTING
The “Regulatory Setting” in the General Plan EIR and Specific Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference (General Plan EIR, pages 3.3-1 to 3.3-5 and Specific Plan EIR pages 4B-11 through 4B-17).
UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
West Sacramento is within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, in which air quality does not meet some State and federal health standards—specifically State standards for ozone and particulate matter and federal standards for ozone. West Sacramento is under the jurisdiction of the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD), which monitors and regulates air quality in the planning area and regulates air pollution emissions of commercial and industrial operations.
The YSAQMD is part of the Sacramento Regional 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan. The 8-Hour Ozone Plan is intended to encourage infill development and growth patterns that promote alternatives to the automobile.
Updated state and federal ambient air quality standards, as provided in Table 3.3-1 (page 3.3-2) of the 2016 General Plan EIR and Table 4B-1 (pages 4B-7 through 4B-8) of the Specific Plan EIR are shown in Table 3.3-1, below:
808
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Air Quality 3.3-2 Draft SEIR
Table 3.3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time CAAQS1
NAAQS2,3 Primary NAAQS2,3
Secondary
CO 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) NA
CO 8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) NA
NO2 1 hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 100 ppb (188 µg/m3) NA
NO2 Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Same as Primary Ozone 1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) NA NA
Ozone 8 hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
8 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)
4 Same as Primary
PM10 24 hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Same as Primary
PM10 Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 6 NA NA
PM2.5 24 hour NA 35 µg/m3 Same as Primary
PM2.5 Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 6 12 µg/m3 10 15.0 µg/m3 SO2 1 hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3) NA SO2 24 hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3) NA SO2 Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 0.030 ppm (80 µg/m3) NA
Sulfates 24 hour 25 µg/m3 NA NA
H2S 1 hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) NA NA
Lead 30-day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA NA
Lead Calendar quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Lead Rolling 3-month Average NA 0.15 µg/m3 9 Same as Primary Vinyl Chloride 24 hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) NA NA
Source: CARB 2023
Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard; CARB = California Air Resources Board; CO = carbon monoxide; EPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; H2S = hydrogen sulfide; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; NA =not applicable; NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million; SO2 = sulfur dioxide 1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1-hour and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter – PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1-hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded. In particular, measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe CO standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one-half the national standard and two-thirds the state standard. 2 National standards shown are the “primary standards” designed to protect public health. National standards other than for ozone, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1-hour ozone standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8- hour ozone standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 4th highest daily concentrations is 0.070 ppm (70 ppb) or less. The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3. The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m3. Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at every site. The national annual particulate standard for PM10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3-year average of annual averages spatially averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard. 3 National air quality standards are set by the EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with an adequate margin of safety. 4 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth-highest maximum daily 8-hour ozone concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than 0.070 ppm. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations October 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment dates varying based on the ozone level in the area. 6 In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM2.5 and PM10. 8 The 8-hour CA ozone standard was approved by the Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005 and became effective on May 17, 2006. 9 National lead standard, rolling 3-month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011. 10 In December 2012, EPA strengthened the annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) from 15.0 to 12.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). In December 2014, EPA issued final area designations for the 2012 primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels. 809
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.3-3 Air Quality
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is provided in the General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR, pages 3.3-5 to 3.3-10) and pages 4B-1 through 4B-11 of the Specific Plan EIR and is hereby incorporated by reference. The setting provides information on the climate, topography, and meteorology. The setting summarizes the existing air quality and describes existing sensitive receptors.
As presented on pages 4B-10 through 4B-11 of the Specific Plan EIR, sensitive receptors include residences, schools, and hospitals. In addition to the sensitive receptors identified in the Specific Plan EIR, there have been residential uses developed within the Specific Plan Area, including on either side of Ironworks Avenue, and north of Mill Street and west of Riverfront Street.
3.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for evaluating the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and are the same as those used in the General Plan EIR. These thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the CAP, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the General Plan EIR. A significant impact to air quality would occur if the CAP would:
► conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; ► violate any air quality standard (i.e., National Ambient Air Quality Standards [NAAQS] or California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS]) or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;
► result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); ► result in carbon monoxide (CO) hotspots;
► expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or ► create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact AQ-1: Conflict with or obstruction of implementation of the applicable air quality plan The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.3-15 to 3.3-23) found a less-than-significant impact related to direct conflicts with relevant attainment plans. The Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update is focused on minor changes in the alignment and cross sections of transportation facilities, as well as promoting bicycle and pedestrian access, reducing VMT, and other actions that improve air quality. There is no change in impact.
810
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Air Quality 3.3-4 Draft SEIR
Impact AQ-2: Potential to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation
The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.3-19 to 3.3-24) found that implementation of the General Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact. The Specific Plan EIR (pages 4B-20 through 4B-26) found significant and unavoidable impacts, as well.
As a part of this SEIR, land use data was updated, and travel demand forecasts were updated. These data were, in turn, used to provide an update to citywide operational emissions. These land use data were also used to create an updated forecast of maximum construction-related emissions associated with implementation of the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan. Please see Table 3.3-2 for an updated estimate of the maximum daily and annual construction-related criteria air pollutant emissions.
Table 3.3-2 Summary of Unmitigated Construction-Related Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors, Maximum Construction Year
Construction Phase
Maximum Daily
Emissions ROG
(tons per year)
Maximum Daily
Emissions NOX
(tons per year)
Maximum Daily
Emissions PM10
(pounds per day)
Demolition 0.31 3.24 8.26
Site Preparation 0.35 3.55 21.02
Grading 0.43 4.23 10.69
Building Construction 2.68 11.08 65.02
Paving 0.13 1.25 0.58
Architectural Coating 42.94 0.44 11.01
Total Maximum 46.84 23.78 116.59
YSAQMD Significance Threshold 10 10 80
Emissions Exceed YSAQMD Threshold? Yes Yes Yes
Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; YSAQMD = Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District Modeled by AECOM in 2023.
Consistent with the conclusions of the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, with the updates proposed to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan, emissions during construction would exceed relevant thresholds, and despite the application of existing YSAQMD rules and Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the impact was considered significant and unavoidable. This mitigation requires dust control for construction projects and would continue to apply to projects implanted under the updated General Plan. The 2016 General Plan also describes the mitigation benefits attributable to General Plan policies, including:
► S-5.3 New Development. The City shall use the CEQA process to ensure development projects incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce construction and operational air quality emissions, and consult with the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District early in the development review process. ► S-5.7 PM10 Emissions from Construction. The City shall require developers to reduce particulate emissions from construction (e.g. grading, excavation, and demolition) to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District guidance. 811
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.3-5 Air Quality
► S-5.9 Mitigation Measures. The City shall maximize the use of current air quality mitigation measures, including offsets, into the construction and design of new development to aid in the reduction of regional air pollution emissions.
The proposed project would have the same sources of construction emissions as under the existing General Plan and Specific Plan. Minor changes to transportation facility alignments and typical cross sections would not materially change the amount or type of construction emissions. Construction would not be placed closer to sensitive receptors under the proposed project.
As described under 1993 Impact 4.6-2 of the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, ozone precursor and carbon monoxide emissions would exceed relevant thresholds, and despite the application of Mitigation Measures 4.6- 2(a) and 4.6-2(b), the impact during construction would be significant and unavoidable. The updated estimate of maximum construction-related emissions provides a conservative quantification of the highest possible level of daily and annual emissions – an estimate that assumes 25 percent of the total balance of buildout of the updated General Plan, potentially including portions of the Specific Plan Area, is subject to demolition and construction in a given year. This analysis also assumes that maximum construction year is 2024, which provides a conservative representation as construction would occur over the buildout horizon and emissions intensity of construction equipment and construction-related vehicles would decrease over time with fleet turnover to newer equipment and vehicles and increasingly stringent emissions regulations. This additional information does not change the findings of either the 2016 General Plan EIR or Specific Plan EIR.
Operational emissions associated with buildout of the General Plan were presented on pages 3.3-21 through 3.3- 23 of the 2016 General Plan EIR and pages 4B-22 through 4B-26 of the Specific Plan EIR. As noted, existing and future land use data for the city has been updated as a part of this SEIR, along with updated estimates of existing and future operational emissions. Table 3.3-3 shows updated emissions for existing conditions, Table 3.3-4 shows 2040 emissions, and Table 3.3-5 shows an updated estimate of the change in emissions between current conditions and 2040 associated with West Sacramento land uses under the updated General Plan, including the updated Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan.
Table 3.3-3 Existing Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Operational Sector
Maximum Annual Emissions
ROG
(tons per year)
Maximum Annual Emissions
NOX
(tons per year)
Maximum Daily Emissions
PM10
(pounds per day)
Mobile 415 773 3,951
Area 1,153 17 3,876
Energy 4 34 15
Total Operational Emissions 1,572 824 7,842
Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases.
Modeled by AECOM in 2023.
812
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Air Quality 3.3-6 Draft SEIR
Table 3.3-4 2040 Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Operational Sector
Maximum Daily Emissions
ROG
(tons per year)
Maximum Daily Emissions
NOX
(tons per year)
Maximum Daily Emissions
PM10
(pounds per day)
Mobile 257 470 4,949
Area 1,970 32 7,184
Energy 4 39 17
Total Operational Emissions 2,231 542 12,150
Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases.
Modeled by AECOM in 2023.
Table 3.3-5 Net Increase of Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursor, Present-2040
Operational Sector
Maximum Daily
Emissions ROG
(tons per year)
Maximum Daily
Emissions NOX
(tons per year)
Maximum Daily
Emissions PM10
(pounds per day)
Mobile -158 -302 998
Area 818 14 3,308
Energy 1 5 2
Total Net Increase in Operational Emissions 660 -283 4,308 YSAQMD Significance Threshold1 10 10 80
Emissions Exceed YSAQMD Threshold? Yes No Yes
Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases.
Modeled by AECOM in 2023.
Due to increasing fuel efficiency and vehicle regulations, as well as the increase in the greater number of electric vehicles in the fleet, despite development and increases in vehicular travel, mobile source emissions are anticipated to decrease between present and 2040 – this was also true for the analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR (Table 3.3-5, page 3.3-21). Since vehicles are the predominant source of oxides of nitrogen, these emissions are anticipated to decrease.
The 2016 General Plan EIR explains that the implementation of the existing General Plan would involve many individual development projects that would exceed project-level thresholds maintained by the YSAQMD, but that these thresholds do not apply to the General Plan, since it is a planning level document. The 2016 General Plan EIR notes under Impact AQ-2 that “the potential air quality effects of general plans should be evaluated based on the plan’s consistency with the most recently adopted air quality attainment plan (AQAP) or State Implementation Plan (SIP) [and that] [t]he goals, policies, and programs related to both the promotion of infill development and the reduction of potential adverse air quality effects set forth in the General Plan… are consistent with the strategies of the SIP and the applicable AQAP” (page 3.3-23). For this reason, operational effects were considered to be less than significant.
813
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.3-7 Air Quality
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR evaluates operational emissions under 1993 Impact 4.6-3, identifying a significant impact, using the YSAQMD thresholds to evaluate emissions. The Specific Plan EIR imposes Mitigation Measures 4.6-3(a) through (e) to this operational impact, but finds a significant and unavoidable impact. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(a) requires new development to comply with the City’s Transportation Systems Management Plan – a plan that is now a part of the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Section 17.67.000) and requires implementation of travel demand reducing programs and annual reporting. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.6- 3(b) requires implementation of planned bicycle pathways and 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(c) prohibits woodburning fireplaces. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(d) requires the City to participate in regional planning to extend transit, and the City has, and continues to implement this mitigation measure. Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(e) requires new development to contribute on a pro-rata basis to the cost of extended transit once employment in the Specific Plan Area reaches 2,000.
The Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update is focused on minor changes in the alignment and cross sections of transportation facilities, as well as promoting bicycle and pedestrian access, reducing VMT, and other actions that improve air quality. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the severity of the operational impact relative to that reported in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
Impact AQ-3: Potential to result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors) The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.3-24) found that the existing General Plan would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact since it is consistent with current air quality attainment plans. The 2016 General Plan EIR explains that the General Plan’s focus on promoting infill development that encourages pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, and consistency with the Sacramento Area Council of Governments Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy is also consistent with air quality attainment planning. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR presents the cumulative air quality analysis as a part of 1993 Impact 4.6-3, as summarized above.
The Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update is focused on minor changes in the alignment and cross sections of transportation facilities, as well as promoting bicycle and pedestrian access, reducing VMT, and other actions that improve air quality. The updated Mobility Element includes an Implementation Program specifically designed to reduce vehicular travel demand – a top source of criteria air pollutant emissions.
Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the severity of the operational impact relative to that reported in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
Impact AQ-4: Exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.3-24 through 3.3-27) found that, with implementation of General Plan policies, there would be a less-than-significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. These policies would continue to apply to projects implemented under the updated General Plan. Policy LU-6.4 requires adequate separation and buffers between sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, educational, healthcare) and industrial land uses. Policy S-5.3 requires feasible mitigation measures to reduce construction and operational air quality emissions and consultation with the YSAQMD early in the development review process. Policy S-5.4 commits the City to ensure adequate separation between sensitive land uses and facilities or operations that may produce toxic or hazardous air pollutants. Policy S-5.5 requires a health 814
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Air Quality 3.3-8 Draft SEIR
risk assessment if buffers cannot be ensured between sensitive receptors and sources of hazardous air pollutant emissions. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR evaluates carbon monoxide concentrations, finding a less-thansignificant impact attributable to vehicle technology and fuel efficiency. The Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update include minor revisions to transportation diagrams and typical cross sections and none of the revisions to the transportation diagrams would move a high-volume roadway into an area with adjacent sensitive receptors. Changes to the Mobility Element are focused on improving multi-modal access, managing vehicular travel demand, engaging the city’s disadvantaged communities in implementation of transportation projects, and addressing gaps in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access – changes that would tend to reduce air pollutant emissions and would not increase any impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not change the impact relative to that reported in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
Impact AQ-5: Creation of objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.3-27 and 3.3-28) found a less than significant impact related to exposure to odors and the General Plan includes Policy S-5.4 which requires an adequate distance between sensitive land uses and facilities or operations that may produce substantial odors. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR found that the odor impact would be less than significant, citing YSAQMD Rule 2.5, which is designed to prevent odor issues. This rule prohibits discharge of emissions that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public. The cited policy and this rule would apply to projects implemented under the updated Mobility Element and Specific Plan, as well.
None of the proposed updates to the Mobility Element or Bridge District Specific Plan would increase any source of odor or increase in any odor exposure for sensitive uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not change the impact relative to that reported in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR. 815
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.4-1 Biological Resources
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of this SEIR, there is no change in impact for the proposed project compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR. 816
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Biological Resources 3.4-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
817
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.5-1 Cultural Resources
3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Cultural resources and tribal cultural resources include archaeological traces such as Native American occupation sites and artifacts, historic-era buildings and structures, and places used for traditional Native American practices or other properties with special cultural significance. Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources,” of the General Plan EIR described cultural resources identified in the city limits and addressed potential impacts associated with the implementation of the General Plan on identified and previously undiscovered cultural resources and human remains. That information is hereby incorporated by reference, and summarized in the “Executive Summary” of this SEIR.
This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the City’s General Plan Mobility Plan Update, where applicable.
3.5.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
REGULATORY SETTING
The “Regulatory Setting” in the General Plan EIR has remained largely unchanged and is hereby incorporated by reference (General Plan EIR, pages 3.5-1 to 3.5-7). The regulatory setting was summarized on pages 4C-4 through 4C-7 of the Specific Plan EIR.
UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
No updates to the regulatory setting are required.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is provided in the General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR, pages 3.4-7 to 3.5-10), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable to the General Plan Mobility Element Update, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The existing conditions within the Specific Plan Area were summarized on pages 4C-1 through 4C-4 of the Specific Plan EIR.
As a part of this environmental review, the City sent invitations to consult pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 to all Native American tribal representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission and all Native American tribal representatives that have indicated to the City that they wish to be invited for consultation for projects subject to CEQA review. The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Wilton Rancheria, and Buena Vista Rancheria requested to consult on this project. Tribal consultation has closed by mutual agreement with all tribes the City was required to consult with pursuant to AB 52 and SB 18 with no new information being disclosed that would impact this EIR. The City has incorporated suggested revisions to mitigation measures to reflect the changes in the regulatory environment since the General Plan EIR was certified, and that help to clarify the City’s approach to reducing potential impacts to unknown cultural and tribal cultural resources. 818
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Cultural Resources 3.5-2 Draft SEIR
3.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for evaluating the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the environmental checklist in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and are the same as those used in the General Plan EIR. These thresholds are used to evaluate potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to implementation of the adoption of the General Plan Mobility Element Update, with a focus on impacts beyond those addressed in the General Plan EIR. A significant impact to cultural resources would occur if the General Plan Mobility Element Update would:
► cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Section 15064.5;
► cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5;
► disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries; or ► cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource.
The 2016 General Plan EIR includes an evaluation of potential effects to tribal cultural resources, which is summarized on pages 3.5-12 through 3.5-13 with General Plan policy and Mitigation Measure CUL-2 designed to avoid significant effects. Since the certification of the 2016 General Plan EIR, the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist was revised to include the last bullet above, pertaining specifically to tribal cultural resources.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact CUL-1: Potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5
The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.5-11 through 3.5-12) found that there would be a significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources, notwithstanding the implementation of General Plan policies NCR-9.1 and NCR-9.3 through NCR-9.11 and Natural and Cultural Resources Implementation Programs 24-29. These policies commit the City to ensuring the preservation of cultural resources, require the City to establish historic districts in appropriate areas, promote adaptive reuse and relocation over demolition of historic resources, and require new development to be compatible with adjacent historic resources. Though the existing General Plan did not propose any actions that would adversely affect any historic resources, the City conservatively assumed that there could be a project implemented under the General Plan that could adversely affect historic resource. The Bridge District Specific Plan found that there would be a less-than-significant impact to historic resources with the application of Mitigation Measure CR-1. This mitigation measure, which would continue to apply within the Specific Plan Area, requires architectural inventories and development of mitigation to avoid impacts.
Since the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update are focused on minor change to transportation facility alignments and design, as well as vehicular travel demand reduction and improvements to bicycle, pedestrian, and transit, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts or 819
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.5-3 Cultural Resources
impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the City’s 2016 General Plan EIR or Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
Impact CUL-2: Potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.5-12 and 3.5-13) found that there could be a significant and unavoidable impact related to damage to archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources, notwithstanding the imposition of implementation programs and mitigation designed to avoid such impacts, including:
Implementation Program 24:
The City shall not knowingly approve any public or private project that may adversely affect a significant archaeological resource without first having a site evaluation conducted by a qualified archaeologist. A qualified archaeologist must meet the Secretary of Interior’s professional qualification standards for archaeology in order to conduct the site evaluation. As determined necessary by the archaeologist and the City, the evaluation may include, but not be limited to, an updated records search, pre-construction field surveys, research, testing, and/or other methods that identify whether a substantial adverse impact on significant archaeological resource would occur. If a cultural resource is discovered, the resources shall be examined by a qualified archaeologist to determine its significance and develop appropriate protection and preservation measures. The City shall ensure the implementation of the measures.
Implementation Program 25:
The City shall require that when any subsurface cultural resources, paleontological resources, or human remains are encountered, all work within 100 feet of the discovery be stopped and the area protected from further disturbance until the discovery is evaluated. The resources shall be evaluated by qualified personnel to determine their significance and develop appropriate measures to avoid or protect valuable resources.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Require appropriate treatment for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources
The City will require, through permit or tentative map conditions or contractual obligations, that in the event of any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, all such finds will be subject to PRC 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. Procedures for inadvertent discovery are listed below. All work within 100 feet of the find will be halted until a professional archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find in accordance with NRHP and CRHR criteria. If any find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist, representatives of the City will meet with the archaeologist to determine the appropriate course of action. If necessary, a Treatment Plan will be prepared by an archeologist, outlining recovery of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. The Treatment Plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to resuming construction.
820
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Cultural Resources 3.5-4 Draft SEIR
All significant cultural materials recovered will be subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and a report prepared by the professional archaeologist according to current professional standards.
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR evaluates impacts to a burial site under Impact 4.20-2, finding a less-thansignificant impact with mitigation that includes the following:
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.20-2(a): [Revised] Monitor possible location of CA-YOL-27 Though the exact location of CA-YOL-27 is not known, there is a possibility that it is located within the Plan Area. The area that is most likely to be the location of this site within the Plan Area can be determined through map and archival research. Historic maps can show mounds that are no longer present and soil difference on soil maps can indicate past human occupation. Based on a thorough search of available documentation locating CA-YOL-27, a review of historic maps, and an examination of soil and geological maps, a qualified archaeologist will delineate the area (including any portion beyond the Plan Area boundaries) that would be most likely to contain CA-YOL-27. This area will be monitored by a qualified archaeologist during excavation.
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.20-2(b): [Revised] Stop work in case of discovery of human remains Should human remains be encountered during excavation or other ground disturbing activities anywhere in the Plan Area, work will halt in the vicinity and the Yolo County Coroner will be notified immediately in accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must, in accordance with PRC 5097 notify NAHC within 24 hours of this identification.
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR also found a less-than-significant with mitigation impact related to unknown archaeological resources (1993 Impact 4.20-3, pages 4C-10 and 4C-11), imposing additional mitigation:
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.20-3: [Revised] Stop work in case of inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources
The City will require through permit conditions or contractual obligations that in the event of any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, and all such finds will be subject to PRC 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. Procedures for inadvertent discovery include the following:
All work within 50 feet of the find will be halted until a professional archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find in accordance with NRHP and CRHR criteria. If any find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist, or paleontologist as appropriate, representatives of the City will meet with the archaeologist to determine the appropriate course of action.
If necessary, a Treatment Plan will be prepared by an archeologist, outlining recovery of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. The Treatment Plan will be submitted to the City for review and
approval prior to resuming construction.
821
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.5-5 Cultural Resources
All significant cultural materials recovered will be subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and a report prepared by the professional archaeologist according to current professional standards.
The above mitigation would continue to apply to projects implemented under the updated General Plan and Specific Plan, as applicable. In addition, the City, as a part of this Supplemental General Plan EIR has added Mitigation Measure CUL-2b to clarify the consultation process and reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, consistent with current state statutory and regulatory requirements:
Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Consistent with current state statutory and regulatory requirements, invite consultation from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribal representatives, assess impacts, and reduce or avoid adverse impacts to significant archaeological resources, including those which are tribal cultural sources or are associated with a tribal cultural resource.
The City will invite consultation from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribal representatives that have requested consultation for both public and private projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consistent with current state statutory and regulatory requirements. The City will provide information about the project and its location, and specifically invite traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribal representatives to provide information about known archaeological or tribal cultural resources that could be affected by proposed projects and recommendation for mitigation that would avoid or reduce potential impacts to such resources. The City will require projects subject to CEQA that have the potential for adverse impacts to potentially significant archaeological resources, including those which are tribal cultural sources or are associated with a tribal cultural resource, to assess impacts and provide feasible mitigation. Based on the assessment, recommendations may include, but are not limited to additional studies to evaluate identified sites or archaeological monitoring at locations determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes to be sensitive for subsurface cultural resource deposits. If no archeological resources, including those which are tribal cultural sources or are associated with a tribal cultural source, are identified that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, mitigation is complete. In the event of the discovery of a previously unknown archaeological site inadvertently exposed during project implementation. In such an event, a qualified archaeologist will be retained to assess the discovery and provide management recommendations as necessary. When a project will impact a known archaeological site, including those determined to be a tribal cultural source, and avoidance is not a feasible option, a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes, shall evaluate the eligibility of the site for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. If the archaeological site is found to be a historical resource as per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3), the qualified archaeologist shall recommend further mitigative treatment, which could include preservation in place or data recovery.
If significant archaeological resources that meet the definition of historical or unique archaeological resources, including those determined to be tribal cultural resources, are identified in the project area, the preferred mitigation of impacts is preservation in place. If impacts cannot feasibly be avoided through project design, appropriate and feasible treatment measures are required, which may consist of, but are not limited to actions, such as data recovery excavations. If only part of a site will be impacted by a project, data recovery will only be necessary for that portion of the site. Data recovery will not be 822
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Cultural Resources 3.5-6 Draft SEIR
required if the implementing agency determines prior testing and studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from the resources.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts or impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the City’s General Plan EIR or Specific Plan EIR, and this analysis is incorporated by reference. The Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update is focused on minor changes in the alignment and cross sections of transportation facilities, as well as promoting bicycle and pedestrian access, reducing VMT, and other actions that improve air quality. The changes in alignment do not move transportation facilities into areas known by the City to be sensitive for cultural or tribal cultural resources and existing mitigation, policies, and implementation programs would continue to be required for transportation improvements. Therefore, the proposed project would not increase the severity of any cumulative cultural or tribal cultural resource impact relative to that reported in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
Impact CUL-3: Disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.5-14), acknowledging that the City’s planning area was inhabited by Native Americans, found that there could be a significant and unavoidable impact related to disturbance to human remains, notwithstanding the imposition of implementation programs and mitigation designed to avoid such impacts, including:
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implement appropriate treatment for discovery of human remains The City will require, through permit or tentative map conditions, that in the event that human remains are discovered, all work shall cease in the vicinity (minimum of 100 feet) of the find and the Yolo County coroner will be notified immediately. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American in origin, the coroner will be responsible for notifying the NAHC, which will appoint a most likely descendant (MLD; PRC Section 5097.99). The project applicant, County, and MLD will make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the dignified treatment of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CCR Title 14 Section 15064.5[d]). The agreement should take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. The MLD will have 48 hours after notification by the NAHC to make their recommendation (PRC Section 5097.98). If the MLD does not agree to the reburial method, the project will follow PRC Section 5097.98(b), which states, “the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.”
As noted above, the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR evaluated impacts to a burial site under Impact 4.20-2, finding a less-than-significant impact with mitigation that includes 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.20-2(a) and
4.20-2(b).
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts or impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that addressed in the City’s General Plan EIR or Specific Plan EIR, and this analysis is incorporated by reference. As noted, above, there are not components of the proposed updates that would increase any impact to known or unknown resources. The updates do not place 823
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.5-7 Cultural Resources
transportation facilities into areas known by the City to be sensitive for cultural or tribal cultural resources and existing mitigation, policies, and implementation programs would continue to be required for transportation improvements.
824
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Cultural Resources 3.5-8 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
825
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.6-1 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources
3.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of this SEIR, there is no change in impact for the proposed project compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR. 826
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources 3.6-2 Draft SEIR This page intentionally left blank
827
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.7-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute cumulatively to global climate change. Cumulative emissions from many projects and activities affect global GHG concentrations and the climate system. GHG emissions disperse broadly and are a global concern because of their relatively long atmospheric lifetimes. Therefore, the total amount and types of GHG emissions, regardless of their location, have the most significant effect on climate change globally.
Section 3.7, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” of the General Plan EIR (pages 3.7-1 to 3.7-22) described existing GHG emissions, provided a summary of applicable regulations, analyzed the potential short-term construction and long-term operational GHG emissions impacts from implementation of the City’s existing General Plan, and identified mitigation measures to reduce significant GHG emissions impacts. That information is hereby incorporated by reference into this SEIR, summarized below, and summarized in the Executive Summary of this SEIR. Bridge District Specific Plan EIR addressed GHG emissions in the same section that addressed air quality – Section 4B.
This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects, where applicable, attributable to the City’s Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update.
3.7.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
REGULATORY SETTING
The Regulatory Setting in the 2016 General Plan EIR is hereby incorporated by reference (General Plan EIR, pages 3.7-1 to 3.7-5). The Regulatory Setting for GHG emissions is presented on pages 4B-12 through 4B-17 of the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
Since the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR were certified, there have been regulatory updates that would reduce GHG emissions in West Sacramento and throughout California.
Senate Bill 32
Approval of SB 32 in September 2016 extended the provisions of AB 32 from 2020 to 2030 with a new target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, in alignment with the goal established under Executive Order B-30-15.
The companion bill, AB 197, adds two non-voting members to the CARB, creates the Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policies consisting of at least three Senators and three Assembly members, requires additional annual reporting of emissions, and requires Scoping Plan updates to include alternative compliance mechanisms for each statewide reduction measure, along with market-based compliance mechanisms and potential incentives.
Assembly Bill 1279
For the post-2030 period, EO B-55-18 established a statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieving and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. Signed 828
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-2 Draft SEIR
September 16, 2022, AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act, codified EO B-55-18. This bill declares the policy of the state both to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and achieve and maintain net negative greenhouse gas emissions thereafter. It as requires that by 2045 statewide anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 85 percent below the 1990 levels.
Senate Bill 100 (2021) – California Renewable Portfolio Standard Established in 2002 by SB 1078, California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires electricity providers (i.e., utilities, cooperatives, and community choice aggregators) to provide a specified minimum portion of their electricity supply from eligible renewable resources by milestone target years. Since 2002, state legislative actions have modified and accelerated the RPS several times, resulting in one of the most ambitious renewable energy standards in the country. Most recently, SB 100 increased the RPS target to require retail sellers of electricity to serve 60 percent of their electric load with renewable energy by 2030 with new interim targets of 44 percent by 2024 and 52 percent by 2027, as well as requiring that all of the state’s electricity come from carbon-free resources (not only RPS-eligible ones) by 2045.
Executive Order B-16-12
Executive Order B-16-12 orders State entities under the direction of the Governor including CARB, the Energy Commission, and Public Utilities Commission to support the rapid commercialization of zero emission vehicles (ZEV). It directs these entities to achieve various benchmarks related to zero emission vehicles, including:
► Infrastructure to support up to one million zero emission vehicles by 2020; ► Widespread use of zero emission vehicles for public transportation and freight transport by 2020; ► Over 1.5 million zero emission vehicles on California roads by 2025; ► Annual displacement of at least 1.5 billion gallons of petroleum fuels by 2025; and ► A reduction of GHG emissions from the transportation sector equaling 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
California Green Building Standards Code
In January 2010, the State of California adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), which establishes mandatory green building standards for all buildings in California. The code covers five categories: planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and indoor environmental quality. These standards include a mandatory set of minimum guidelines, as well as more rigorous voluntary measures, for new construction projects to achieve specific green building performance levels. This code went into effect as part of local jurisdictions’ building codes on January 1, 2011. The 2013 update to the code has been adopted and became effective January 2014. Another update to the energy efficiency standards became effective January 1, 2017. The 2016 update to the Building Energy Efficiency Standards became effective on January 1, 2020, and improved the energy efficiency of newly constructed buildings and additions and alterations to existing buildings. The new standards address non-residential development, as well, and build on the energy efficiency progress made within previous iterations. The California Energy Commission adopted the 2022 Energy Code on August 11, 2021, and in December of 2021, this new Code was approved by the California Building Standards Commission. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric-ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. It goes into effect on January 1, 2023 (CEC 2022).
829
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.7-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is provided in the General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR, pages 3.7-5 to 3.7-9) and is hereby incorporated by reference.
UPDATES TO ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through uncertain impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) 2021 Synthesis Report indicated that warming of the climate system is unequivocal and, since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. Signs that global climate change has occurred include warming of the atmosphere and ocean, diminished amounts of snow and ice, and rising sea levels (IPCC 2021).
Although climate change is driven by global atmospheric conditions, climate change impacts are felt locally. A scientific consensus confirms that climate change is already affecting California. As noted in the Sacramento Valley Regional Report of the California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, climate change is expected to make the Sacramento region hotter, drier, and increasingly prone to extremes like megadroughts, flooding, and large wildfires. These changing conditions are likely to affect water and energy availability, agricultural systems, plants and wildlife, public health, housing, and quality of life.
California Emissions Inventory
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) prepares an annual inventory of statewide GHG emissions. GHGs are typically analyzed by sector, a term that refers to the type of activity. As shown in Exhibit 3.7-1, 418.2 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT CO2e) were generated in 2019. Combustion of fossil fuel in the transportation sector was the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions in 2019, accounting for 41 percent of total GHG emissions. Transportation was followed by industry, which accounted for 24 percent, and then the electric power sector (including in-state and out-of-state sources), which accounted for 14 percent of total GHG emissions (CARB 2021a).
California has implemented several programs and regulatory measures to reduce GHG emissions. Exhibit 3.7-2 demonstrates California’s progress in reducing statewide GHG emissions. Since 2007, California’s GHG emissions have been declining, even as population and gross domestic product have increased. Per-capita GHG emissions in 2019 were 25 percent lower than the peak per-capita GHG emissions recorded in 2001. Similarly, GHG emissions per million dollars of gross domestic product have decreased by 47 percent since the peak in 2001.
830
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-4 Draft SEIR
Source: CARB 2021a
Exhibit 3.7-1 2019 California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory by Sector Source: CARB 2021b
Exhibit 3.7-2 Trends in California Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Years 2000 to 2019) 831
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.7-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
West Sacramento Greenhouse Gas Emissions
A GHG inventory estimates the amount of GHG emission generated in a community during the chosen analysis year. There are hundreds of GHGs, but community GHG inventories typically focus on three important and relevant ones: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). In an inventory, the amount of each greenhouse gas is converted into a common unit of measurement called carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). This reflects the fact that greenhouse gases contribute differently to global warming depending on how powerful each gas is at trapping solar radiation and heating the atmosphere. To make this conversion, each GHG pollutant is multiplied by its relative heat-trapping ability factor, called “global warming potential.” For example, CH4 is 28 times more potent than CO2 in its heat-trapping ability; therefore, a unit of CH4 has a CO2e value 28 times greater than that of a unit of CO2. The common standard for expressing GHG emissions in an inventory is MT CO2e.
In climate action planning, a baseline inventory is typically established for which the key GHGs are calculated and reported according to their generation source or emissions sector. West Sacramento’s most recent inventory was prepared for 2018 emissions.
Transportation
► On-Rd. Transportation. Fuel consumption from vehicle travel within the city (includes all trips that start and end in the city, one-half of trips that start or end in the city and excludes pass-through trips) ► Waterborne Navigation: Fuel consumption from harbor craft and ocean-going vessels operating at and visiting the Port of West Sacramento, including at-berth emissions from vessels’ auxiliary engine and boiler use ► Off-Rd. Transportation: Fuel consumption from vehicles that are designed for travel on unpaved terrain (e.g., construction machinery and agricultural equipment)
Energy
► Residential Buildings, Commercial Buildings, Institutional Buildings: Natural gas and electricity consumption for heating, cooling, cooking, appliances, etc.
► Natural Gas Fugitive Emissions: Natural gas leaks from the distribution system Waste
► Solid Waste: Decomposition of landfilled waste
► Compost: Decomposition of composted waste
► Wastewater: Treatment and discharge of wastewater
The City’s 2018 emissions totaled approximately 395,800 MT CO2e. As is true for California as a whole, the top source is transportation (64 percent), followed by the energy sector (30 percent). The remaining six percent of the city’s GHG emissions came from the waste sector.
832
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-6 Draft SEIR
Regional Transportation Emissions
SACOG, pursuant to the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) incorporates State-developed GHG emissions targets for passenger vehicle emissions into a “sustainable communities strategy” as part of its regional transportation plan. SACOG has also developed analysis and mapping showing the location of low-VMT areas within the region. For residential generated VMT, most of the developed portion of West Sacramento – essentially all of the city north of the Deep Water Channel is in a low VMT area, as identified by SACOG – an area where the density, mix of land uses, access to non-vehicular transportation options, and other factors result in a reduced need for vehicular transportation compared to the balance of the region.5 As
explained above in the Environmental Setting, combustion of fossil fuel in the transportation sector is the single largest source of California’s GHG emissions and also the largest source in West Sacramento.
3.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant effect if it would result in any of the conditions listed below. ► Generation of GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
► Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.
Further information related to thresholds of significance is provided in the General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR, pages 3.7-9 to 3.7-14) and is hereby incorporated by reference.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact GHG-1: Generation of GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment
The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.7-14 through to 3.7-17) found a significant and unavoidable impact associated with implementation of the existing General Plan – both in relation to construction and operational emissions. Construction emissions were evaluated using a significance threshold of 1,100 MT CO2e per year developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. The 2016 General Plan EIR estimated a 6 percent increase in emissions between 2011 and 2020, and identified total forecast 2035 GHG emissions of 751,005 and a 2035 emissions rate of 5.5 MT CO2e per year per service population (page 3.7-17). Service population includes the total residential population and total employment of an area. The 2016 General Plan EIR found that, while the City was committed to developing a Climate Action Plan, since the Climate Action Plan reduction strategies were not available, it was premature to assume their effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions to a less-than-cumulatively considerable level.
5 Please see SACOG’s website for more details:
https://sacog.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0eac172e44514776b2f30e4324652f88&extent=- 13567338.6225%2C4599309.7898%2C-13330078.0867%2C4789485.1162%2C102100 833
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.7-7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
More recently, the City created updated emissions forecasts for 2030 and 2045, with a forecast growth of 6 percent between 2018 and 2030 and a 20-percent increase between 2018 and 2045 without consideration of the actions being developed by the City as a part of a communitywide Climate Action Plan. In addition, to support this SEIR, existing and future land use data were updated and used to create a new estimate of vehicular travel demand (VMT), average daily travel along city streets, and GHG emissions under existing and future conditions. These new data show a decrease in emissions through 2040 – mostly attributable to a decrease in mobile source emission due to improvements in vehicle technology and efficiency.
Table 3.7-1 West Sacramento GHG Emissions and GHG Efficiency: Existing and 2040 Proposed Specific Plan Emissions Source Existing GHG Emissions (MT CO2e)
GHG Emissions in 2040
(MT CO2e)
Annual Operational Area Activity 19,902 37,159
Annual Operational Energy Sources 91,737 55,099
Annual Operational Mobile Sources 736,135 674,888
Annual Operational Waste Use 26,055 26,948
Annual Operational Water Generation 16,293 20,842
Total Annual Operational Emissions 890,122 808,310
Total City Jobs 37,460 48,118
Total City Residents 52,787 72,632
Total Service Population (Employees + Residents) 90,247 120,750 GHG Efficiency (MT CO2e per service population) 9.86 6.69 Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MT CO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent The City evaluated Bridge District Specific Plan emissions as a part of the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, identifying 306,554 tons per year of CO2 emissions at buildout, characterizing this as a cumulatively considerable level of emissions (page 4B-2B). The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR imposed a range of mitigation measures on new development within the Specific Plan Area, some of which are now superseded by state building code requirements including:
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.22-2(a): Project developers within the Plan Area shall implement the following conservation/load management measures for commercial development:
Incorporate the load management devices that:
- Control the use of electricity during peak periods.
- Shed non-critical loads during generation shortfall.
Preparing auxiliary generators for use at PG&E’s request. Incorporating electrical equipment that is more efficient than that required by code. An efficiency improvement of 20% is recommended. The following equipment is most important for achieving electrical load reductions:
- High-efficiency air conditioners.
- High-efficiency motors.
- High-efficiency lighting systems.
834
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-8 Draft SEIR
- High-efficiency water heating systems.
Providing space cooling by using a “thermal energy storage” system. Illuminating by natural light in lieu of artificial light. Daylighting is especially applicable in:
- Commercial space where non-critical tasks are performed. - Warehouses.
- Industrial complexes.
- Perimeter of multi-level parking garages.
Maximizing use of deciduous trees to provide shading of buildings and parking areas. Requiring that all new commercial buildings shall be certified under the LEED rating system. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.22-2(b): Project developers within the Plan Area shall implement the following conservation/load management measures for residential development:
Maximizing southern orientation, limiting east-west glass areas, Siting as many housing units as possible on a north-south axis, streets to run east-west, Incorporating fixed window shading devices,
Maximizing efficiency of heating and cooling equipment, Maximizing efficiency of built-in appliances, and
Maximizing use of deciduous trees to provide shading of buildings and parking areas.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(a): The project proponent shall design buildings to be energy efficient This includes siting buildings to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(b): The project proponent shall require that all contractors implement the following measures
The project proponent shall, to the extent feasible and available, require the project contractors to utilize local and regional building materials in order to reduce energy consumption and vehicle emissions associated with transporting materials over long distances. The project proponent shall adhere to the City of West Sacramento’s Municipal Code and its requirement that all covered projects shall divert at least 50% of construction and/or demolition debris from disposal in landfills.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(c): Project proponent shall construct new bus stops at convenient locations with pedestrian access to the project developments
Pullouts will be designed so that normal traffic flow or arterial roadway would not be impeded when buses are pulled over to serve riders. In addition, the project proponent shall work with local school districts to expand bus service.
835
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.7-9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(d): Project proponents shall provide bicycle amenities at each project development site
As appropriate, this shall include secure bicycle parking for office and retail employees, bicycle racks for retail customers and bike lane connections throughout each project site.
Project proponent shall construct new bus stops at convenient locations with pedestrian access to the project developments. Pullouts will be designed so that normal traffic flow or arterial roadway would not be impeded when buses are pulled over to serve riders. This mitigation measure meets the requirement of CAT strategy 13 as outlined in the Regulatory Setting section. Project proponents shall provide bicycle amenities at each project development site. As appropriate, this shall include secure bicycle parking for office and retail employees, bicycle racks for retail customers and bike lane connections throughout each project site. This mitigation measure meets the requirement of CAT strategy 13 as outlined in the Regulatory Setting section. Project proponents shall include outdoor electrical outlets in all town homes, one located on the front of the building and one located on the rear of the building so as to encourage the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment. This mitigation measure meets the requirement of CAT strategy 5 as outlined in the Regulatory Setting section.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(e): Project proponent shall include outdoor electrical outlets in all town homes, one located on the front of the building and one located on the rear of the building, to encourage the use of electrical landscape maintenance equipment
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(f): Project proponent shall incorporate the use of the following in all development to the extent feasible
Installation of motion detectors or dimmers in offices to control lighting. Installation of efficient security, street, and parking lot lighting (e.g., high pressure low sodium fixtures).
Installation of reflective window film or awnings on south and west facing windows. Installation of ceiling and wall insulation.
Installation of Energy Management Systems to control HVAC systems including operating hours, set points, scheduling of chillers, etc.
836
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-10 Draft SEIR
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(g): Where feasible, the project proponent shall install, light colored “cool” roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(h): The project proponent shall install efficient lighting and lighting control systems, as well as use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings Mitigation Measure AQ-2(i): The project proponent shall, for commercial and office buildings with air conditioning units of 5 tons or less (<65,000 Btu/h) meet the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) Tier II specifications
The SEER/EER ratings shall be specified on building plans and the Title 24 compliance certificates at the time building permits are requested.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(j): The project proponent shall include, in residential buildings measures to conserve water usage including use of water efficient features such as high efficiency toilets, water conserving dishwashers, hot water demand systems, and electronic timers to control landscape irrigation systems
Commercial business shall be encouraged to install high efficiency and dual flush toilets, waterless urinals, electronic faucets, and hot water demand systems. In addition, water-efficient landscapes shall be used.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(k): The project proponent shall, where feasible, and where the development parcel orientation permits, incorporate principles of passive solar design Passive solar design is the technology of heating, cooling, and lighting a building naturally with sunlight rather than with mechanical systems because the building itself is the system. Basic design principles are large south-facing windows with proper overhangs, as well as tile, brick, or other thermal mass material used in flooring or walls to store the sun’s heat during the day and release it back into the building at night when the temperature drops. Passive solar also takes advantage of energy efficient materials, improved insulation, airtight construction, natural landscaping, and proper building orientation to take advantage of the sun, shade, and wind.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(l): The project proponent shall include a photovoltaic (i.e., solar electric) system, if feasible
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(m): The project proponent shall incorporate the use of the following in all development to the extent feasible
Installation of motion detectors or dimmers in offices to control lighting. Installation of efficient security, street, and parking lot lighting (e.g., high pressure low sodium fixtures).
Installation of reflective window film or awnings on south and west facing windows. Installation of ceiling and wall insulation.
837
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.7-11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Installation of Energy Management Systems to control HVAC systems including operating hours, set points, scheduling of chillers, etc.
This mitigation measure assists in meeting the requirements of CAT strategies 11, 12, and 14 as outlined in the Regulatory Setting section.
Similar to the 2016 General Plan EIR, for the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, the City found that, notwithstanding the implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be cumulatively considerable and unavoidable (Final EIR, page 4-29). To the extent that the above-described mitigation is not superseded by City code requirements, state code requirements, or a future adopted City Climate Action Plan, this mitigation would apply to development within the Specific Plan Area, and development anywhere in the planning area is anticipated to be subject to a communitywide Climate Action Plan in the future.
The updated information on existing and 2040 GHG emissions provided in this SEIR, that include the City’s planning area and the Bridge District Specific Plan, do not represent a new impact or an increase in severity with respect to the global impact of climate change.
Impact GHG-2: Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs
The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.7-18 to 3.7-20) found a significant and unavoidable impact related to consistency with Executive Order S-3-05 and Executive Order B-30-15. Executive Order S-3-05 calls for the State government to reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010; to 1990 levels by 2020; and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-30-15 established a statewide GHG emissions reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR did not include a separate evaluation of planning consistency for GHG emissions effects.
Since certification of the 2016 General Plan EIR, SB 32 was signed, extending the provisions of AB 32 from 2020 to 2030 with a new target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, in alignment with the goal established under Executive Order B-30-15. As described above, city emissions are not currently anticipated to be consistent with the trajectory outlined in Executive Order S-3-05 or B-30-15, though a Climate Action Plan is under development. Proposed revisions to the Mobility Element include a new VMT reduction program and policy changes to emphasize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access – changes that would tend to reduce GHG emissions and promote consistency with State efforts at reducing GHG emissions. There is no change with respect to this impact attributable to the Mobility Element Update and Bridge District Specific Plan update.
838
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-12 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
839
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.8-1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of this SEIR, there is no change in impact for the proposed project compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR.
840
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
841
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.9-1 Hydrology and Water Quality
3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of this SEIR, there is no change in impact for the proposed project compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR.
842
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
843
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.10-1 Land Use and Planning
3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of this SEIR, there is no change in impact for the proposed project compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR. 844
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Land Use and Planning 3.10-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
845
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.11-1 Mineral Resources
3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of this SEIR, there is no change in impact for the proposed project compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR. 846
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Mineral Resources 3.11-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
847
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-1 Noise and Vibration
3.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION
Section 3.12, “Noise,” of the General Plan EIR included a summary of noise fundamentals, a description of ambient noise conditions, a summary of applicable regulations related to noise and vibration, and an analysis of the potential impacts resulting from the implementation of the General Plan (General Plan EIR, pages 3.12-1 to 3.12-27). That information is hereby incorporated by reference, and summarized in the “Executive Summary” of this SEIR.
This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the City’s General Plan Mobility Element Update, where applicable.
3.12.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
REGULATORY SETTING
The regulatory setting in the General Plan EIR was presented on pages 3.12-7 to 3.12-10. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR presents the regulatory setting on pages 4G-6 through 4G-12. The regulatory setting is updated and expanded in the material that follows.
REGULATORY SETTING UPDATE
Federal
Although not directly applicable to many projects, and not anticipated to be directly applicable to projects implemented under the City’s update General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan, the research that supported the development of federal community noise standards is broadly applicable in understanding human response to different noise levels and can be used to help support an evaluation of environmental noise impacts.
Below is a list of federal agencies with noise exposure criteria. ► U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): Noise standards to protect public health and welfare ► Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Noise standards for federally funded housing projects ► Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Noise standards for aircraft noise ► Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Noise standards for federally funded highway projects ► Federal Transit Administration (FTA): Noise standards for federally funded transit projects ► Federal Railroad Administration (FRA): Noise standards for federally funded rail projects U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Noise Control Act (Public Law 92-574) The federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) established a requirement that all federal agencies administer their programs to promote an environment free of noise that would jeopardize public health or welfare.6
Although the EPA was given a major role in disseminating information to the public and coordinating federal agencies, each federal agency retains authority to adopt noise regulations pertaining to agency programs.7 6 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given the responsibility for providing information to the public regarding identifiable effects of noise on public health and welfare, publishing information on the levels of environmental noise that will protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety, coordinating federal research and activities related to noise control, and establishing federal noise emission standards for selected products distributed in interstate commerce. The Noise Control Act also directed that all federal agencies comply with applicable federal, State, interstate, and local noise control regulations. 7 The EPA can, however, require other federal agencies to justify their noise regulations in terms of the Noise Control Act policy requirements.
848
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-2 Draft SEIR
In 1974, in response to the requirements of the federal Noise Control Act, the EPA identified indoor and outdoor noise level limits to protect public health and welfare (communication disruption, sleep disturbance, and hearing damage). Outdoor and indoor noise exposure limits of 55 decibels (dB) day-night average sound level (Ldn) and 45 dB Ldn, respectively, are identified as desirable to protect against speech interference and sleep disturbance for residential, educational, and healthcare areas. The sound-level criterion identified to protect against hearing damage in commercial and industrial areas is 70 dB 24-hour equivalent sound level (Leq) (both outdoors and indoors).
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Noise Abatement and Control (24 Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 51, Subpart B)
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has established guidelines for evaluating noise impacts on residential projects seeking financial support under various grant programs (HUD 2013), as summarized below:
► Acceptable < 65 dB. Sites are generally considered acceptable for residential use if they are exposed to outdoor noise levels of 65 dB Ldn or less.
► Normally Unacceptable 65–75 dB. Sites are considered “normally unacceptable” if they are exposed to outdoor noise levels of 65–75 dB Ldn.
► Unacceptable > 75 dB. Sites are considered “unacceptable” if they are exposed to outdoor noise levels above 75 dB Ldn.
The HUD goal for the interior noise levels in residences is 45 dB Ldn or less.
Federal Aviation Administration Airport Noise Compatibility Planning (14 CFR Part 159) 14 CFR Part 150, “Airport Noise Compatibility Planning” prescribes the procedures, standards, and methodology to be applied to airport noise compatibility planning activities. Noise levels below 65 dB Ldn are normally considered to be acceptable for noise-sensitive land uses.