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
1204
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
1205
• 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
1206
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
1207
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
1208
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
1209
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
1210
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
1211
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
1212
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
1213
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
1214
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
1215
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
Attachment 4
1216
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1217
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 Attachment 4
1218
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 Attachment 4
1219
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 Attachment 4
1220
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
Attachment 4
1221
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
Attachment 4
1222
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
Attachment 4
1223
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.”
Attachment 4
1224
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, Attachment 4
1225
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.
Attachment 4
1226
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 Attachment 4
1227
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.
Attachment 4
1228
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.
Attachment 4
1229
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.
Attachment 4
1230
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Executive Summary ES-8 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 4
1231
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 Attachment 4
1232
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 Attachment 4
1233
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
Attachment 4
1234
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 Attachment 4
1235
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 Attachment 4
1236
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 Attachment 4
1237
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 Attachment 4
1238
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:
Attachment 4
1239
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.
Attachment 4
1240
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.
Attachment 4
1241
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.
Attachment 4
1242
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 Attachment 4
1243
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.
Attachment 4
1244
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Project Description 2-4 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 4
1245
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.
Attachment 4
1246
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 Attachment 4
1247
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.
Attachment 4
1248
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Impact Analysis 3-4 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 4
1249
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 Attachment 4
1250
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 Attachment 4
1251
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.
Attachment 4
1252
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Aesthetics 3.1-4 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1253
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.
Attachment 4
1254
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Agricultural and Forestry Resources 3.2-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1255
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:
Attachment 4
1256
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.
Attachment 4
1257
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.
Attachment 4
1258
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.
Attachment 4
1259
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.
Attachment 4
1260
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.
Attachment 4
1261
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 Attachment 4
1262
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.
Attachment 4
1263
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.
Attachment 4
1264
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Biological Resources 3.4-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1265
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.
Attachment 4
1266
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 Attachment 4
1267
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.
Attachment 4
1268
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.
Attachment 4
1269
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 Attachment 4
1270
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 Attachment 4
1271
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.
Attachment 4
1272
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Cultural Resources 3.5-8 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1273
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.
Attachment 4
1274
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources 3.6-2 Draft SEIR This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1275
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 Attachment 4
1276
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).
Attachment 4
1277
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.
Attachment 4
1278
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) Attachment 4
1279
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.
Attachment 4
1280
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 Attachment 4
1281
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.
Attachment 4
1282
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.
Attachment 4
1283
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.
Attachment 4
1284
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.
Attachment 4
1285
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.
Attachment 4
1286
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Greenhouse Gas Emissions 3.7-12 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1287
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.
Attachment 4
1288
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Hazards and Hazardous Materials 3.8-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1289
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.
Attachment 4
1290
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Hydrology and Water Quality 3.9-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1291
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.
Attachment 4
1292
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Land Use and Planning 3.10-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1293
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.
Attachment 4
1294
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Mineral Resources 3.11-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1295
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.
Attachment 4
1296
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.
Federal Highway Administration Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise Regulations (23 CFR 772)
FHWA regulations (23 CFR 772) specify procedures for evaluating noise impacts associated with federally funded highway projects and determining whether these impacts are sufficient to justify funding noise abatement.
The FHWA noise abatement criteria are based on worst hourly Leq sound levels, not 24-hour average values (e.g., Ldn or community noise equivalent level [CNEL]). The worst-hour Leq criteria for residential, educational, and healthcare facilities are 67 dB outdoors and 52 dB indoors. The worst-hour Leq criterion for commercial and industrial areas is 72 dB (outdoors).
Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA Report No. 0123)
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) procedures for the evaluation of noise from transit projects are specified in the document entitled, “Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment” (FTA 2018). The FTA Noise Impact Criteria address the following categories:
Attachment 4
1297
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-3 Noise and Vibration
► Category 1: Buildings or parks, where quiet is an essential element of their purpose. ► Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance. ► Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, churches, and active parks.
The FTA noise impact threshold is a sliding scale based on existing noise exposure and land use of sensitive receivers. The basic concept of the FTA noise impact criteria is that more project noise is allowed in areas where existing noise is higher. However, in areas where existing noise exposure is higher, the allowable increase above the existing noise exposure decreases. For example, in an area with an existing noise level of 55 A-weighted decibel (dBA), the allowable increase in noise level is 3 dBA, resulting in a total future noise impact threshold of 58 dBA. For an area with an existing noise level of 60 dBA, the allowable increase in noise level is only 2 dBA, resulting in a total future noise impact threshold of 62 dBA.
The FTA defines two levels of noise impact: moderate and severe. Mitigation is recommended for all severe noise impacts. The FTA noise impact criteria are shown graphically in Exhibit 3.12-1 for the different categories of land use, along with an example of how the criteria are applied. The two graphs on the left are for non-residential land uses where Leq(h) represents the noise exposure metric, and the top right graph is for residential land uses where Ldn represents the noise exposure metric. As shown in Exhibit 3.12-1, the impact threshold is a sliding scale, and it typically increases with an increase in existing noise exposure. The existing noise appears on the horizontal axis, and the amount of new noise that the project can create is on the vertical axis. The lower curve (blue) defines the threshold for moderate impact and the upper curve (red) defines the threshold for severe impact.
The sample graph located in the bottom right corner of Exhibit 3.12-1 clarifies the concept of a sliding scale for noise impact. Assume that the existing noise has been measured at 60 dBA Ldn. This is the total noise from all existing noise sources over a 24-hour period: traffic, aircraft, lawnmowers, children playing, birds chirping, etc.
Starting at 60 dBA on the horizontal axis, follow the vertical line up to where it intersects the moderate and severe impact curves. Then refer to the left axis to see the impact thresholds. An existing noise of 60 dBA Ldn gives thresholds of 57.8 dBA Ldn for moderate impact and 63.4 dBA Ldn for severe impact.8 The curves in Exhibit 3.12-1 are defined in terms of project-only noise (on the vertical axes) and the existing noise (on the horizontal axes). The project-only noise is the noise introduced into the environment by the project; it is not the future noise levels with the project. The project-only noise does not include noise from existing noise sources in the area that would not change as a result of the project such as automobile traffic and airplanes.
The Ldn noise level descriptor is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2). For other noise sensitive land uses, such as outdoor amphitheaters and school buildings (Categories 1 and 3), the maximum hourly Leq during the facility’s operating period is used. Noise impacts are identified based on absolute predicted noise levels and increases in noise associated with the subject project. 8 Note that the values are measured in tenths of a decibel to avoid confusion from rounding off; in reality, one cannot perceive a tenth of a decibel change in sound level.
Attachment 4
1298
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-4 Draft SEIR
FTA Construction Vibration Criteria
The FTA Guidance Manual recommends using local construction noise limits, if possible. The primary concern regarding construction vibration is potential damage to structures. The thresholds for potential damage are much higher than the thresholds for evaluating potential annoyance used to assess impact from operational vibration.
Building damage criteria recommended by FTA are shown in Table 3.12-1. These limits can be used to estimate potential problems. The vibration limits that are shown are the levels at which a risk for damage would exist for each building category, not the level at which damage would occur. These limits should be viewed as criteria to use in impact assessment, to identify problem locations.
To avoid temporary annoyance to building occupants during construction or construction interference with vibration-sensitive equipment inside special-use buildings, such as that from a magnetic resonance imaging machine, FTA recommends comparing the project construction-related velocity level in decibel units (VdB) to the criteria shown in Table 3.12-2 for frequent, occasional, and infrequent events. FTA defines frequent events as more than 70 events per day, occasional events as 30–70 events per day, and infrequent events as fewer than 30 events per day. It was conservatively assumed that the construction-related, vibration-generating activities under the proposed project would fall under occasional events as defined by FTA. The vibration annoyance criteria for vocational events because of construction are shown in Table 3.12-2 with 75 VdB for land use Category 1 and 78 VdB for land use Category 2.
Table 3.12-1 Federal Transit Administration Construction Vibration Damage Criteria Building Category PPV (inch/second) Approximate RMS Vibration Velocity Levela I. Reinforced concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5 102 II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3 98 III. Non-engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2 94 IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12 90 Notes: PPV = peak particle velocity; RMS = root-mean-square; VdB = velocity level in decibel a RMS vibration velocity level in VdB relative to 1 micro-inch/second.
Source: FTA 2018
Table 3.12-2 FTA Construction Vibration Annoyance Criteria Land Use Category
Impact Levels
(VdB; relative to 1 micro-inch/second)
Frequent
Eventsa
Occasional
Eventsb
Infrequent
Eventsc
Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations
65d 65d 65d
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep 72 75 80 Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime uses 75 78 83 Notes: FTA = Federal Transit Administration; VdB = velocity level in decibel units a “Frequent events” is defined as more than 70 vibration events from the same source per day. b “Occasional events” is defined as 30 to 70 vibration events from the same source per day. c “Infrequent events” is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events from the same source per day. d This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical microscopes. Vibration sensitive manufacturing or research would require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels.
Source: FTA 2018
Attachment 4
1299
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-5 Noise and Vibration
Source: FTA 2018.
Exhibit 3.12-1 FTA Impact Criteria for Noise
Attachment 4
1300
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-6 Draft SEIR
State
Similar to federal regulations, for most projects implemented under the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan, state regulations would not directly apply. However, the research underpinning these regulations and the following guidance can be useful for evaluating environmental noise impacts of projects in West Sacramento.
State of California General Plan Guidelines, Government Code Section 65302 et seq.
In 1971, the State required cities and counties to include noise elements in their general plans (Government Code Section 65302 et seq.). The State of California General Plan Guidelines (Office of Planning and Research 2017) identify guidelines for the noise elements of local general plans, including a sound level/land-use compatibility chart. The noise element guidelines identify the “normally acceptable” range of noise exposure for low-density residential uses as less than 60 dB Ldn, and the “conditionally acceptable” range as 55–70 dB Ldn. The “normally acceptable” range for high-density residential uses is identified as below 65 dB Ldn, and the “conditionally acceptable” range is identified as 60–70 dB Ldn. For educational and medical facilities, levels below 70 dB Ldn are considered “normally acceptable,” and levels of 60–70 dB Ldn are considered “conditionally acceptable.” For office and commercial land uses, levels below 70 dB Ldn are considered “normally acceptable,” and levels of
67.5–77.5 dB Ldn are considered “conditionally acceptable.” Overlapping noise level ranges are intended to indicate that local conditions (existing sound levels and community attitudes toward dominant sound sources) should be considered in evaluating land use compatibility at specific locations.
California Noise Insulation Standards, California Code of Regulations Part 2, Title 24 Part 2, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations “California Noise Insulation Standards” establishes minimum noise insulation standards to protect persons within new hotels, motels, dormitories, long-term care facilities, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Under this regulation, interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources should not exceed 45 dB Ldn in any habitable room.9
California Department of Transportation Vibration Criteria The effects of groundborne vibration include movement of building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items that sit on shelves or hang on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, vibration can damage buildings, although this is not a factor for most projects. Human annoyance from groundborne vibration often occurs when vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by only a small margin. A vibration level that causes annoyance can be well below the damage threshold for normal buildings.
Vibration impacts would be significant if vibration levels would exceed the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)-recommended standard of 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings or FTA’s maximum-acceptable vibration standard of 80 velocity level in decibel units (VdB) with respect to human response for residential uses (i.e., annoyance) at nearby vibration-sensitive land uses. Table 3.12-3 shows Caltrans’ general thresholds for structural responses to vibration levels.
9 Where such residences are located in an environment where exterior noise is 60 dB Ldn or greater, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45 dB Ldn interior standard.
Attachment 4
1301
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-7 Noise and Vibration
Table 3.12-3 Structural Responses to Vibration Levels
Structure and Condition
Peak Vibration Threshold (in/sec PPV)
Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent
Intermittent Sources
Extremely fragile historic buildings, ruins, ancient monuments 0.12 0.08 Fragile buildings 0.2 0.1
Historic and some old buildings 0.5 0.25
Older residential structures 0.5 0.3
New residential structures 1.0 0.5
Modern industrial/commercial buildings 2.0 0.5
Notes: in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity Source: Caltrans 2013
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is provided in the General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR, pages 3.12-10 to 3.12- 13), is current as it relates to potential effects attributable to the General Plan Mobility Element Update, and is hereby incorporated by reference. The environmental setting is presented on pages 4G-1 through 4G-6 of the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR. Updates to this setting follow.
UPDATE TO ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Overview of Groundborne Vibration
Operation of heavy construction equipment, particularly pile-driving equipment and other impact devices (e.g., pavement breakers), create seismic waves that radiate along the surface of and downward into the ground. These waves can be felt as ground vibration. Vibration from the operation of this type of equipment can result in effects that range from annoying people to damaging structures. Variations in geology and distance result in different vibration levels, including different frequencies and displacements. In all cases, vibration amplitudes decrease with increased distance.
Perceptible groundborne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of construction activities. As seismic waves travel outward from a vibration source, they cause rock and soil particles to oscillate.
The actual distance that these particles move is usually only a few ten-thousandths to a few thousandths of an inch. The rate or velocity (in inches per second) at which these particles move is the commonly accepted descriptor of vibration amplitude, referred to as peak particle velocity (PPV).
Vibration amplitude attenuates over distance. This is a complex function of how energy is imparted into the ground and the soil or rock conditions through which the vibration is traveling. Table 3.12-4 summarizes typical vibration levels generated by construction equipment at the reference distance of 25 feet.
Attachment 4
1302
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-8 Draft SEIR
Table 3.12-4 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV at 25 Feet
Vibratory Roller 0.210
Large bulldozer 0.089
Caisson drilling 0.089
Loaded trucks 0.076
Jackhammer 0.035
Small bulldozer 0.003
Notes: PPV = peak particle velocity
Source: FTA 2018
Groundborne vibration can also be quantified by the root-mean-square (RMS) velocity amplitudes, which is useful for assessing human annoyance. The RMS amplitude is expressed in terms of the VdB. The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually around 50 VdB or lower. The vibration velocity level threshold of perception for humans is approximately 65 VdB. Most perceptible indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as the operation of mechanical equipment, movement of people, or the slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are heavy construction equipment, steelwheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the groundborne vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible.
Table 3.12-5 summarizes the typical groundborne vibration velocity levels and average human response to vibration that may be anticipated when a person is at rest in quiet surroundings. If the person is engaged in any type of physical activity, vibration tolerance increases considerably. The duration of the event has an effect on human response, as does its daily frequency of occurrence. Generally, as the duration and frequency of occurrence increase, the potential for adverse human response increases.
Table 3.12-5 Typical Levels of Groundborne Vibration
Human or Structural Response
Vibration Velocity
Level (VdB)
Typical Sources
(50 feet from source)
Threshold for minor cosmetic damage to fragile
buildings
—100— Blasting from construction project
Bulldozer or heavy-tracked construction
equipment
Difficulty in reading computer screen —90—
Upper range of commuter rail
Threshold for residential annoyance for
occasional events
—80— Upper range of rapid transit
Threshold for residential annoyance for frequent
events
Typical commuter rail
Bus or truck over bump
—70— Typical rapid transit
Approximate threshold for human perception of
vibration; limit for vibration-sensitive equipment
Typical bus or truck on public road
—60—
Typical background vibration
—50—
Source: FTA 2018.
Groundborne noise is a secondary component of groundborne vibration. When a building structure vibrates, noise is radiated into the interior of the building. Typically, this is a low-frequency sound that can be perceived as a low rumble. The magnitude of the sound depends on the frequency characteristic of the vibration and the manner in Attachment 4
1303
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-9 Noise and Vibration
which the room surfaces in the building radiate sound. Groundborne noise is quantified by the A-weighted sound level inside the building. The sound level accompanying vibration is generally 25 to 40 dBA lower than the vibration velocity level in VdB. Groundborne vibration levels of 65 VdB can result in groundborne noise levels of up to 40 dBA, which can disturb sleep. Groundborne vibration levels of 85 VdB can result in groundborne noise levels of up to 60 dBA, which can be annoying to daytime noise-sensitive land uses such as schools (FTA 2006).
Noise-Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Places where people live, sleep, worship, and study are sensitive to noise because intrusive sound can be disruptive to these activities. Noise-sensitive uses include residentially designated areas, nursing homes, schools, libraries, and places of worship. Noise sources include highway and surface streets, railways, aircraft, and stationary noise sources such as commercial and industrial uses, construction sites, as well as neighborhood parks and schools.
Noise conflicts can occur when larger-scale commercial and industrial uses are located near or adjacent to residential neighborhoods, but recreational and other non-residential land uses can also create conflicts. Whether or not the juxtaposition of different land uses creates a noise conflict depends on the design, scale, character, and operation of both the noise-generating use and the noise-sensitive use.
Noise sensitive land uses or sensitive receptors are those uses that are most sensitive to high noise levels.
Sensitive noise receptors typically include residences, religious facilities, schools, childcare centers, hospitals, long-term health care facilities, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. All of these land use types, except hospitals, occur within the City’s planning area.
Residential neighborhoods are located throughout West Sacramento, while large-scale commercial uses are somewhat concentrated around I-80 and U.S. Highway 50 (U.S. 50), and between Reed Avenue and Industrial Boulevard and east Jefferson Boulevard north and south of U.S. 50, in areas that are largely separated from most residences. Industrial uses within the City area located mostly south of I-80 and east and west of Southport Parkway, and along the railroad south of Industrial Boulevard. Developed parks can represent a source of noise, particularly parks that accommodate organized sports. Parks in West Sacramento are interspersed throughout residential areas. Similarly, public, and institutional uses can emit noise. For example, schools, which are located throughout the city and are surrounded by residential uses, can represent a source of noise.
Existing Sources of Noise
Noise sources within West Sacramento and the Bridge District Specific Plan Area can be characterized as “transportation-related” and “fixed” (non- transportation- related). Transportation-related noise sources consist of roadway traffic noise and railroad noise. Major transportation routes are dominant sources of noise in West Sacramento. These include traffic on I-80, and other local arterials and streets, and train operations on the Union Pacific Railroad. The fixed noise sources include, but are not limited to, industrial facility noise, operations associated with commercial land uses, racetrack operations, and special events such as softball and soccer games.
Existing noise sources include motor vehicle traffic, rail operations, aircraft overflights, motorized watercraft on the Sacramento River, industrial facilities, and events (baseball games and concerts) at Raley Field.
Attachment 4
1304
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-10 Draft SEIR
Traffic Noise
The primary noise source in the study area is vehicle traffic. Ambient noise levels in the study area are influenced by traffic on major roads such as I-80, U.S. 50, Jefferson Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, Industrial Boulevard, and Enterprise Boulevard.
Traffic operations data was used to estimate existing traffic noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline of the studied roadways (see Table 3.12-6).10 Additionally, the 55 dB CNEL, 60 dB CNEL, and 65 dB CNEL traffic noise contour distances were determined. Please see Table 3.12-3 for a summary of traffic noise levels and contour distances for the existing condition.11 Traffic noise contours were prepared using the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA 1978) traffic noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Please see Exhibit
3.12-2 for existing traffic noise contours attributable to major and minor arterials and collector roadway segments within West Sacramento (shown as CNEL).
Table 3.12-6 Existing Traffic Noise Levels and Contour Distances No. Segment
Average
Daily Traffic
Volume CNEL
@
100 ft
Distance
to Contours
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
1 C Street between 5th Street and City Limit 10,100 66.8 152 480 1,518 2 Davis Road between Jefferson Boulevard and Antioch Avenue 547 54.1 8 26 82 3 Davis Road between Antioch Avenue and South River Road 667 55.0 10 32 100 4 Gregory Avenue between Bevan Road and South River Road 1,839 59.4 28 87 276 5 Harbor Boulevard between Rice Avenue and West Capitol Avenue 19,214 70.6 366 1,158 3,663 6 Harbor Boulevard between Reed Avenue and Rice Avenue 22,194 71.3 423 1,338 4,231 7 Industrial Boulevard between Enterprise Boulevard and Parkway Boulevard 7,487 67.5 177 559 1,768 8 Industrial Boulevard between Parkway Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard 12,089 69.6 285 903 2,855 9 Industrial Boulevard between Harbor Boulevard and Stone Boulevard 27,120 73.1 640 2,025 6,405 10 Jefferson Boulevard between Sacramento Avenue and West Capitol Avenue 17,007 71.0 402 1,270 4,016 11 Jefferson Boulevard between West Capitol Avenue and 15th Street 30,556 73.6 722 2,282 7,216 12 Jefferson Boulevard between 15th Street and Stone Boulevard 25,071 72.7 592 1,872 5,921 13 Jefferson Boulevard between Stone Boulevard and Lake Washington Boulevard 29,311 73.4 692 2,189 6,922 14 Jefferson Boulevard between Lake Washington Boulevard and Linden Road (South) 18,354 71.3 424 1,341 4,241 10 Collected traffic volumes were used to characterize existing traffic noise levels. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108), existing traffic volumes, and posted traffic speed, day/night traffic distribution, and assumptions regarding the traffic fleet mix (i.e., percentage of automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks) were used to assess existing traffic noise exposure for both streets and roads in the General Plan study area. The FHWA Model is the standard model recommended by the FHWA and is the analytical method presently favored for traffic noise prediction by most state and local agencies, including Caltrans.
The current version of the Model is based upon the California Vehicle Noise (CALVENO) emission factors for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver and the acoustical characteristics of the site. The FHWA Model predicts day-night average noise levels (Ldn), and hourly Leq values for freeflowing traffic conditions and is generally considered to be accurate within 1.5 dB of the measured condition. Traffic data representing average daily traffic volumes for existing conditions were obtained from the City of West Sacramento. Day/night traffic distribution for all studied roadways was based upon the day-night average daily traffic volumes. Posted traffic speeds and vehicle mixes were assumed for the traffic noise modeling effort. 11 In some cases, the actual distances to noise level contours may vary from the distances predicted by the FHWA Model, because the modeling does not take into account existing sound barriers or structures, vegetation, or other factors that can attenuate (reduce) noise.
Factors such as roadway curvature, roadway grade, shielding from local topography or structures, roadway elevations, and elevation of receivers may also affect actual sound propagation. Therefore, the distances reported are estimates of noise exposure can be considered conservative and could overestimate noise levels.
Attachment 4
1305
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-11 Noise and Vibration
No. Segment
Average
Daily Traffic
Volume CNEL
@
100 ft
Distance
to Contours
65 dBA
CNEL
60 dBA
CNEL
55 dBA
CNEL
15 Jefferson Boulevard between Linden Road (South) and Davis Road 13,565 69.9 306 969 3,065 16 Jefferson Boulevard between Davis Road and Southport Parkway 4,245 64.7 94 296 937 17 Jefferson Boulevard between Southport Parkway and City Limits (South) 1,785 60.9 38 122 385 18 Kegle Drive between Anna Street and Sacramento Avenue 7,910 65.3 106 335 1060 19 Lake Washington Boulevard between Stone Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard 26,972 72.4 554 1,752 5,541 20 Lake Washington Boulevard between Jefferson Boulevard and Stonegate Drive 7,618 66.8 153 483 1,526 21 Lighthouse Drive between Fountain Drive and A Street 4,800 62.8 60 189 596 22 Lighthouse Drive between Fountain Drive and Kegle Drive 2,003 58.8 24 77 242 23 Linden Road (North) between Summerfield Drive and Jefferson Boulevard 3,334 61.0 40 125 396 24 Linden Road (South) between Summerfield Drive and Jefferson Boulevard 1,082 56.0 13 40 125 25 Linden Road between Jefferson Boulevard and Stonegate Drive 4,049 61.6 45 144 455 26 Marshall Road between Seymour Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard 5,855 63.0 63 200 632 27 Marshall Road between Marshall Road west end) and Golden Gate Drive 2,610 59.4 27 86 273 28 North Harbor Boulevard between Riverbank Road and Reed Avenue 4,023 62.1 52 164 517 29 North Harbor Boulevard between City Limits and Riverbank Road 5,611 65.3 107 338 1,070 30 Reed Avenue between Riverside Parkway and Sunset Avenue 12,327 68.7 235 743 2,350 31 Sacramento Avenue between Sunset Avenue and Kegle Drive 14,464 69.4 276 872 2,757 32 Sacramento Avenue between Kegle Drive and 6th Street 7,840 66.7 149 473 1,494 33 5th Street between West Capitol Avenue and Riske Lane 11,413 67.3 172 542 1,715 34 5th Street between Riske Lane and 15th Street 13,925 68.2 209 662 2,093 35 Southport Parkway between Ramco Street and Lake Washington Boulevard 23,422 72.4 553 1,749 5,531 36 Southport Parkway between Promenade Street and Marshall Road 5,417 66.1 128 405 1,279 37 Southport Parkway between Marshall Road and Jefferson Boulevard 1,626 60.8 38 121 384 38 West Capitol Avenue between Enterprise Boulevard and Northport Drive 6,879 65.2 104 330 1,044 39 West Capitol Avenue between Northport Drive and Harbor Boulevard 8,817 66.3 134 423 1,338 40 West Capitol Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Sycamore Street 13,008 68.0 197 624 1,974 41 West Capitol Avenue between Sycamore Street and Jefferson Boulevard 10,558 67.0 160 507 1,602 42 West Capitol Avenue between Jefferson Boulevard and Grand Street 5,223 63.9 78 245 775 43 West Capitol Avenue between Grand Street and 3rd Street 10,793 66.9 157 495 1,567 Notes: dB = decibels; ft = feet; Ldn = Day-Night Average sound level Source: Existing traffic data collected by the City of West Sacramento; traffic noise modeling, AECOM 2023.
Attachment 4
1306
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-12 Draft SEIR
Source: AECOM 2023.
Exhibit 3.12-2 Existing Vehicular Transportation Noise Contours Attachment 4
1307
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-13 Noise and Vibration
Fixed Noise Sources
Commercial and industrial facilities are a source of noise within West Sacramento. Mechanical equipment and trucking are the primary sources of noise associated with these facilities. Industrial processes are often recognized as a primary fixed noise source. Significant noise generation can occur even when the best available noise control technology is applied. Noise exposures within industrial facilities are controlled by federal and state employee health and safety regulations (federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Cal-OSHA]). Exterior noise levels may, however, exceed locally acceptable standards. Commercial, recreational, and public service facility activities can also produce noise that affects adjacent sensitive land uses. These noise sources can be continuous and may contain tonal components that may be annoying to individuals who live in the nearby vicinity. In addition, noise generation from fixed noise sources may vary based on climatic conditions, time of day, and existing ambient noise levels.
From a planning perspective, fixed-source noise control issues focus upon two goals: to prevent the introduction of new noise-producing uses in noise-sensitive areas and to prevent encroachment of noise-sensitive uses upon existing noise-producing facilities. The first goal can be achieved by applying noise level performance standards to proposed new noise-producing uses. The second goal can be met by requiring that new noise-sensitive uses in near proximity to existing noise-producing facilities include mitigation measures to reduce noise exposure for the new noise-sensitive use.
Fixed noise sources that are typically of concern include, but are not limited to, the following:
► Air Compressors
► Blowers
► Boilers
► Conveyor Systems
► Cooling Towers/Evaporative Condensers
► Cutting Equipment
► Drill Rigs
► Emergency Generators
► Fans
► Gas or Diesel Motors
► Generators
► Grinders
► HVAC Systems
► Lift Stations
► Outdoor Speakers
► Pile Drivers
► Pump Stations
► Steam Turbines
► Steam Valves
► Transformers
► Welders
Attachment 4
1308
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-14 Draft SEIR
These noise sources may be found in industrial facilities, trucking operations, tire shops, auto maintenance shops, metal fabricating shops, shopping centers, drive-up windows, car washes, loading docks, public works projects, batch plants, bottling and canning plants, recycling centers, electric generating stations, landfills, sand and gravel operations, and athletic fields. There are numerous fixed noise sources that are dispersed throughout the city.
Landscape and Building Maintenance Activities
Landscape maintenance activities include the use of leaf blowers, power tools, and gasoline-powered lawn mowers, and could result in intermittent noise levels of approximately 88 dB at 6 feet. Based on an equipment noise level of 88 dB, the use of such equipment, assuming a noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, would result in exterior noise levels of approximately 70 dB at 50 feet. If these activities occur during noise-sensitive hours, such as early in the morning, this results in compatibility issues for nearby noise-sensitive uses.
Mechanical Equipment
The operation of mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps, generators; heating, ventilation, and cooling systems) could result in intermittent noise levels of approximately 90 dB at 3 feet (EPA 1971). Based on this equipment noise level, the operation of such equipment, assuming a noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, may result in exterior noise levels of approximately 60 dB at 95 feet. These types of equipment are typically shielded from direct exposure (e.g., housed on rooftops, in equipment rooms, or in exterior enclosures), which can help to avoid noise compatibility issues.
Garbage Collection Activities
Garbage collection activities (e.g., emptying large refuse dumpsters, possible multiple times per week, and the shaking of containers with a hydraulic lift), could result in instantaneous maximum noise levels of approximately 89 dB maximum noise level (Lmax) at 50 feet. Such activities are anticipated to be very brief, intermittent, and would occur during daytime hours, which are less noise-sensitive times of day. Garbage collection activities are infrequent, and therefore would not be expected to exceed daily noise standards. Noises would typically emanate from public rights-of-way, which would normally be separated from outdoor gathering spaces associated with residential uses. Noise associated with garbage collection would not be expected to create single-event noise that would be substantially disruptive to daily activities or cause sleep disturbance.
Parking Lots
Parking lots and parking structures include noise sources such as vehicles entering/exiting the lot, alarms/radios, and doors slamming. According to the FHWA, parking lots with a maximum hourly traffic volume of approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour either entering or exiting the lot could result in a peak hour and daily noise levels of approximately 56 dB Leq and 63 dB Ldn at 50 feet.
Commercial, Office, and Industrial Activities
Commercial, office, and industrial noise sources include loading dock activities, air circulation systems, delivery areas, and the operation of trash compactors, air compressors, and public address systems (i.e., amplification and speakers used in drive-through retail establishments or sporting events). Such activities could result in intermittent Attachment 4
1309
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-15 Noise and Vibration
noise levels of approximately up to 91 dB Lmax at 50 feet (EPA 1971) and high single-event noise levels from backup alarms from delivery trucks during the more noise-sensitive hours of the day.
Other Residential, School, and Recreation Activities and Events Noise sources typical of residential, school, recreation, and event uses could include voices and amplified music/speaker systems. Such sources could result in noise levels of approximately 60–75 dB Leq at 50 feet.
Events (Baseball Games and Concerts) at Sutter Health Park In addition to transportation and industrial noise sources, ambient noise levels near the Sacramento River are affected by baseball games and other large events that take place at Sutter Health Park. Motorized watercraft using the Sacramento River could have noise impacts on noise-sensitive uses adjacent to the river.
Ambient Noise Level Measurements
In support of this SEIR, new noise measurements were collected to update the description of existing conditions as they were presented in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR. A community noise survey was conducted to document noise exposure in areas with noise-sensitive land uses. Noise measurement sites were selected to be representative of noise-sensitive area. The community noise survey was conducted at 15 locations including five long-term (24-hour) and 10 short-term (10 to 20-minutes) measurements.12 Traffic on local streets, U.S. 50 and I-80, distant commercial and industrial activities, and neighborhood activities are the controlling factors for background noise levels in most of West Sacramento. Long-term ambient noise level measurements were conducted in primarily residential areas to record day-night statistical noise level trends.
Short-term ambient noise level measurements were conducted to record typical daytime noise levels near noisesensitive uses in West Sacramento.
Measured noise levels are summarized in Table 3.12-7, to provide an indication of ambient noise levels in West Sacramento. Noise measurement sites are shown in Exhibit 3.12-3. The Leq values presented in Table 3.12-7 represent the average measured noise levels during the measured time periods. Lmax values show the maximum noise levels observed during the measured time periods. These measurements were completed from March 2–3, 2023. The community noise survey results indicate that typical noise levels in noise-sensitive areas range from 49 dB to 72 dB Ldn.
12 Noise level measurements were completed using Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820, 824 and 831 precision integrating sound level meters. The meters were calibrated prior to the measurements using an LDL Model (CAL 200) acoustical calibrator. The equipment used complies with all pertinent requirements of the American National Standards Institute for Class 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4).
Attachment 4
1310
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-16 Draft SEIR
Source: AECOM 2023.
Exhibit 3.12-3 Noise Measurement Locations
Attachment 4
1311
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-17 Noise and Vibration
Table 3.12-7 Existing Ambient Noise Levels
Site1 Location Date Start
Time Duration
Sound Level (dBA)2
Ldn3 Daytime
(7 a.m.–10 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10 p.m.–7 a.m.)
Leq4 Lmax5 L506 L907 Leq Lmax L50 L90
LT-02 3400 Golden Gate
Drive
Thurs., March 2 to Fri.,
March 3, 2023 24 Hr. 24 Hr. 51 68 44 48 46 57 40 44 54
LT-03
2040 Lake
Washington
Boulevard
Thurs., March 2 to Fri.,
March 3, 2023 24 Hr. 24 Hr. 56 73 48 52 51 64 42 47 58
LT-04 1708 Deerwood St. Thurs., March 2 to Fri.,
March 3, 2023 24 Hr. 24 Hr. 52 66 47 49 50 59 47 49 57
LT-05 1600 Citrus St. Thurs., March 2 to Fri.,
March 3, 2023 24 Hr. 24 Hr. 53 73 45 47 56 72 48 50 62
LT-06 310 Williams Street Thurs., March 2 to Fri.,
March 3, 2023 24 Hr. 24 Hr. 65 75 52 55 58 73 54 56 66
ST-01 By 1100 Carrie St. Thursday, March 2, 2023 13:00 0:15 0:15 58 dB 0 -- -- -- -- -- ST-02 Jerome D. Barry
Park, Ballpark Drive Thursday, March 2, 2023 13:25 0:15 0:15 62 66 63 -- -- -- -- -- ST-03 By 827 Pine Avenue Thursday, March 2, 2023 13:59 0:15 0:15 57 71 60 -- -- -- -- -- ST-04 By 3901 Lake Road Thursday, March 2, 2023 14:34 0:15 0:15 64 67 66 -- -- -- -- -- ST-05 Emile “Whitey”
Boisclair Park Thursday, March 2, 2023 15:15 0:15 0:15 53 67 59 -- -- -- -- -- ST-06 Kimberly Court Culde-sac Thursday, March 2, 2023 15:51 0:15 0:15 49 65 55 -- -- -- -- -- ST-07 By 2900 Jefferson
Boulevard Thursday, March 2, 2023 16:39 0:15 0:15 72 80 77 -- -- -- -- -- ST-08 3480 Alpine St. Thursday, March 2, 2023 13:02 0:15 0:15 51 66 54 -- -- -- -- -- ST-09 By 3272 Burrows
Avenue Friday, March 3, 2023 13:59 0:16 0:16 52 74 54 -- -- -- -- -- ST-10 By 2100 Manchester
St. Friday, March 3, 2023 15:05 0:15 0:15 53 60 57 -- -- -- -- -- 1 Measurement locations are shown in Exhibit 3.12-3.
2 dBA (A-weighted decibels): The weighted sound level measurement scale specifically adjusted to human hearing. 3 Ldn (day night noise level): The 24-hour Leq with a 10-dBA “penalty” for noise events that occur during the noise-sensitive hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.
4 Leq (equivalent noise level): The energy mean (average) noise level. 5 Lmax (maximum noise level): The maximum instantaneous noise level during a specific period of time. 6 L50: The noise level for 50 percent of the measured time period 7 L90: The noise level for 90 percent of the measured time period Source: Measurements collected by AECOM March 2-3, 2023
3.12.2 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 are the same as those used in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR. Since the time when these EIRs were certified, the Appendix G checklist questions have been narrowed from the six questions evaluated previously to the following three questions:
Attachment 4
1312
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-18 Draft SEIR
► Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
► Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ► For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
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 The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.12-14 through 3.12-23) found that there would be significant and unavoidable noise impacts associated with implementation of the existing General Plan – both for temporary construction-related noise and also longer-term traffic noise. Similarly, the City found in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR under 1993 Impact 4.7-2, 1993 Impact 4.7-3, 1993 Impact 4.7-4, and Impact NOI-1 that development in the Specific Plan Area would be exposed to excessive traffic, rail noise, existing industries, and events at Raley Field, but that this impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The Specific Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to construction despite imposing 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.7-1(a) through 4.7-1(c).
Temporary Construction Noise
As detailed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Specific Plan EIR, construction noise effects are considered significant and unavoidable. The proposed Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not change this finding or result in any increase in severity in relation to this impact. The proposed changes in transportation alignments would not move future construction activities into areas adjacent to noise-sensitive uses.
However, the following additional information is provided to clarify and expand the existing analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Specific Plan EIR.
To assess the potential short-term noise impacts from construction, sensitive receptors and their relative levels of exposure were identified. Construction noise was predicted using the Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment methodology for construction noise prediction (FTA 2018). The noise emission levels referenced, and usage factors are based on FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHA 2006). Noise levels of specific construction equipment and resultant noise levels at the locations of sensitive receptors were calculated.
Groundborne vibration impacts were assessed based on FTA methodology for construction (e.g., vibration levels produced by specific construction equipment operations and the distance of sensitive receptors from a given source), and transportation vibration sources (FTA 2018). Please see above under the heading, “Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA Report No. 0123),” for more detail.
Residences and businesses located adjacent to areas of construction activity would be affected by construction noise during buildout of the updated General Plan and Specific Plan. Construction noise impacts result when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or nighttime hours), Attachment 4
1313
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-19 Noise and Vibration
the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive land uses, and when construction durations last over extended periods of time.
Noise generating construction activities related to development within West Sacramento would include demolition activities, site grading and excavation, building erection, paving, and landscaping. The highest construction noise levels are typically generated during grading and excavation. Relatively lower noise levels typically occur during building construction.
Large pieces of earth-moving equipment, such as graders, excavators, and dozers, generate maximum noise levels of 85 dBA to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (refer to Table 3.12-8 below) (EPA 1971). Typical hourly average construction-generated noise levels are approximately 80 dBA to 85 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the site during busy construction periods.
Table 3.12-8 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type of Equipment
Noise Level in dB at 50 feet
Without Feasible Noise Control With Feasible Noise Control 1 Dozer or Tractor 80 75
Excavator 88 80
Compactor 82 75
Front-end Loader 79 75
Backhoe 85 75
Grader 85 75
Crane 83 75
Generator 78 75
Truck 91 75
Pile Driver 101 -
Note: dB = decibel
1 Feasible noise control includes the use of intake mufflers, exhaust mufflers, and engine shrouds in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
Sources: EPA 1971; FTA 2018
Though it is unusual, it is possible that pile-driving could be required for some multi-story development. This type of construction activity could produce very high noise levels of approximately 105 dB at 50 feet. Noise levels would attenuate at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the noise source and receptor.
Intervening structures would provide additional shielding from the noise source.
Operational Noise
Buildout of the updated General Plan and Specific Plan has the potential to expose existing and future noisesensitive uses to a variety of noise sources, including traffic noise, railroad noise, and other fixed and nontransportation noise. Noise-sensitive uses include residences, schools, hospitals, parks, hotels, places of worship, libraries, and similar uses where there is an expectation of quiet.
Traffic Noise
Buildout of the updated General Plan and Specific Plan would generate and attract vehicular traffic, which would increase traffic noise levels along existing and future roadways, and could generate noise which exceeds the existing General Plan’s exterior noise standard for noise-sensitive uses of 60 dBA Ldn/CNEL for outdoor activity Attachment 4
1314
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-20 Draft SEIR
areas. As illustrated in Table 3.12-9, traffic associated with buildout of the updated General Plan, including the updated Specific Plan, along with regional growth is expected to increase noise levels along city streets and regional thoroughfares. There are several streets and roads where increased traffic volumes would result in a perceptible increase in noise level (by at least 3 dB) and multiple streets and roads where the increase over existing conditions is anticipated to be clearly noticeable (by at least 5 dB). In Table 3.12-9, noise increases of 3 dB or greater are shown in bold text.
Traffic noise contours for the year 2040 are shown in Exhibit 3.12-3 (shown as CNEL). The predicted traffic noise levels shown in Table 3.12-9 represent conservative potential noise exposure, including the assumption that all intervening surfaces between the transportation noise source and the noise receptor are hard surfaces, such as concrete and asphalt. In reality, noise levels will vary, because the calculations used to estimate the noise contours do not assume natural or artificial shielding or reflection from existing or proposed structures. Actual noise levels will vary from day to day, depending on factors, such as local traffic volumes and speed, shielding from existing and proposed structures, variations in attenuation rates resulting from changes in surface parameters, and meteorological conditions.
Rail and Light Rail Transit and Streetcar Noise
According to updated Policy M-4.9, the City anticipates the extension of light rail and/or street cars into West Sacramento, as contemplated in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (1993 Impact 4.7-4, pages 4G-22 through 4G-23). However, under revised Policy M-4.9, the City has added areas to which transit could be extended in the future, including Pioneer Bluff, Stone Lock, and Southport Town Center, where there are no noise-sensitive uses.
Noise sensitive uses located beyond 100 feet of street cars and beyond 200 feet of light rail transit (LRT) would not be adversely affected by the noise generated from these sources (FTA 2018). If intervening buildings are located between the noise-sensitive uses and these transit sources, noise-sensitive uses located beyond 50 feet of street cars and beyond 100 feet of LRT would not be adversely affected by the noise generated from these sources (FTA 2018).
Landscape and Building Maintenance Activities
Buildout of the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan, including infill development in areas adjacent to existing or planned noise-sensitive uses, is anticipated to require the operation of landscape maintenance and other property maintenance equipment. Landscape maintenance activities include the use of leaf blowers, power tools, and gasoline-powered lawn mowers, which could result in intermittent noise levels of approximately 88.3 dB at 6.5 feet.
Table 3.12-9 Existing and 2040 Updated General Plan + Specific Plan 55, 60, and 65 dBA Traffic Noise Contours
No. Segment
Existing 2040
CNEL, Increase
@ 100
Feet
Contour
Distances CNEL,
@ 100
Feet
Contour
Distances
65 60 55 65 60 55
1 C Street between 5th Street and City Limit 66.8 152 480 1,518 69.7 293 927 2,933 2.9 2 Davis Road between Jefferson Boulevard and Antioch Avenue 54.1 8 26 82 57.8 19 61 192 3.7 3 Davis Road between Antioch Avenue and South River Road 55.0 10 32 100 46.0 1 4 13 -9.0 4 Gregory Avenue between Bevan Road and South River Road 59.4 28 87 276 59.9 31 99 312 0.5 Attachment 4
1315
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-21 Noise and Vibration
No. Segment
Existing 2040
CNEL, Increase
@ 100
Feet
Contour
Distances CNEL,
@ 100
Feet
Contour
Distances
65 60 55 65 60 55
5 Harbor Boulevard between Rice Avenue and West Capitol Avenue 70.6 366 1,158 3,663 70.7 368 1,164 3,682 0.0 6 Harbor Boulevard between Reed Avenue and Rice Avenue 71.3 423 1,338 4231 72.9 614 1,942 6,140 1.6 7 Industrial Boulevard between Enterprise Boulevard and Parkway Boulevard 67.5 177 559 1,768 65.4 110 346 1,095 -2.1 8 Industrial Boulevard between Parkway Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard 69.6 285 903 2855 67.4 173 546 1,728 -2.2 9 Industrial Boulevard between Harbor Boulevard and Stone Boulevard 73.1 640 2,025 6,405 74.4 877 2,774 8,773 1.4 10 Jefferson Boulevard between Sacramento Avenue and West Capitol Avenue 71.0 402 1,270 4,016 72.0 496 1,567 4,956 0.9 11 Jefferson Boulevard between West Capitol Avenue and 15th Street 73.6 722 2,282 7,216 74.6 909 2875 9,091 1.0 12 Jefferson Boulevard between 15th Street and Stone Boulevard 72.7 592 1,872 5,921 74.8 953 3015 9,534 2.1 13 Jefferson Boulevard between Stone Boulevard and Lake Washington Boulevard 73.4 692 2,189 6,922 72.1 511 1,615 5,107 -1.3 14 Jefferson Boulevard between Lake Washington Boulevard and Linden Road (South) 71.3 424 1,341 4,241 73.4 695 2,198 6,950 2.1 15 Jefferson Boulevard between Linden Road (South) and Davis Road 69.9 306 969 3,065 70.6 359 1,136 3,593 0.7 16 Jefferson Boulevard between Davis Road and Southport Parkway 64.7 94 296 937 65.8 121 382 1,208 1.1 17 Jefferson Boulevard between Southport Parkway and City Limits (South) 60.9 38 122 385 60.6 36 114 360 -0.3 18 Kegle Drive between Anna Street and Sacramento Avenue 65.3 106 335 1,060 67.6 182 574 1817 2.3 19 Lake Washington Boulevard between Stone Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard 72.4 554 1,752 5,541 73.8 756 2,389 7,556 1.3 20 Lake Washington Boulevard between Jefferson Boulevard and Stonegate Drive 66.8 153 483 1,526 67.7 185 584 1,846 0.8 21 Lighthouse Drive between Fountain Drive and A Street 62.8 60 189 596 65.0 99 315 995 2.2 22 Lighthouse Drive between Fountain Drive and Kegle Drive 58.8 24 77 242 64.9 97 306 969 6.0 23 Linden Road (North) between Summerfield Drive and Jefferson Boulevard 61.0 40 125 396 66.8 151 478 1,512 5.8 24 Linden Road (South) between Summerfield Drive and Jefferson Boulevard 56.0 13 40 125 57.5 18 56 177 1.5 25 Linden Road between Jefferson Boulevard and Stonegate Drive 61.6 45 144 455 61.0 40 126 399 -0.6 26 Marshall Road between Seymour Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard 63.0 63 200 632 65.0 99 313 990 1.9 27 Marshall Road between Marshall Road west end and Golden Gate Drive 59.4 27 86 273 54.1 8 26 82 -5.2 28 North Harbor Boulevard between Riverbank Road and Reed Avenue 62.1 52 164 517 66.6 145 458 1,448 4.5 29 North Harbor Boulevard between City Limits and Riverbank Road 65.3 107 338 1,070 70.7 372 1,176 3,720 5.4 30 Reed Avenue between Riverside Parkway and Sunset Avenue 68.7 235 743 2,350 58.9 24 77 243 -9.9 31 Sacramento Avenue between Sunset Avenue and Kegle Drive 69.4 276 872 2,757 47.0 2 5 16 -22.4 32 Sacramento Avenue between Kegle Drive and 6th Street 66.7 149 473 1,494 61.0 40 125 396 -5.8 33 5th Street between West Capitol Avenue and Riske Lane 67.3 172 542 1715 69.6 290 918 2,903 2.3 34 5th Street between Riske Lane and 15th Street 68.2 209 662 2093 71.8 484 1,531 4,841 3.6 35 Southport Parkway between Ramco Street and Lake Washington Boulevard 72.4 553 1749 5531 65.4 110 346 1,095 -7.0 36 Southport Parkway between Promenade Street and Marshall Road 66.1 128 405 1279 67.4 173 546 1,728 1.3 37 Southport Parkway between Marshall Road and Jefferson Boulevard 60.8 38 121 384 74.4 877 2,774 8,773 13.6 38 West Capitol Avenue between Enterprise Boulevard and Northport Drive 65.2 104 330 1,044 70.0 318 1,007 3,184 4.8 39 West Capitol Avenue between Northport Drive and Harbor Boulevard 66.3 134 423 1338 72.7 584 1,847 5,841 6.4 40 West Capitol Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Sycamore Street 68.0 197 624 1974 72.9 613 1,937 6,126 4.9 41 West Capitol Avenue between Sycamore Street and Jefferson Boulevard 67.0 160 507 1602 70.2 328 1,038 3,281 3.1 42 West Capitol Avenue between Jefferson Boulevard and Grand Street 63.9 78 245 775 71.5 447 1,412 4,465 7.6 43 West Capitol Avenue between Grand Street and 3rd Street 66.9 157 495 1567 68.6 231 730 2,308 1.7 Attachment 4
1316
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-22 Draft SEIR
Notes: dB = decibels; Ldn = Day-Night Average sound level. For some street segments, noise levels could be over or underestimated because traffic counts were documented for relatively longer segments than were used for the updated travel demand modeling. Worst-case conditions are generally reflected in the table.
Bold: indicates roadway segment with an increase of +3 or more dBA.
Source: Traffic volume and noise modeling conducted by AECOM 2023.
The use of such equipment, assuming a noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, would result in exterior noise levels of approximately 70.1 dB at a distance of 50 feet.
Although such activities would likely occur during daytime hours, the exact hours and locations are unknown at this time. Such activities are anticipated to be intermittent and would occur during the daytime, which is a less noise-sensitive time of day. Furthermore, these noise sources are typical and expected within urban and residential environments.
Depending on the location and extent of the use of this equipment, this has the potential to exceed the existing General Plan non-transportation standards of 45 dB Leq nighttime, 55 dBA Leq daytime, 65 dBA Lmax nighttime, and 70 dBA Lmax daytime. The use of such equipment would not be frequent enough or of such long duration that applicable hourly standards would be exceeded for adjacent noise-sensitive land uses, but it is possible that maximum single-event standards could potentially be exceeded.
Mechanical Equipment
Buildout of the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan, including infill development in areas adjacent to existing or planned noise-sensitive uses, could require operation of mechanical equipment at residential, commercial, office, industrial, institutional, and public facilities. The operation of mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps, generators; heating, ventilation, and cooling systems) could result in intermittent noise levels of approximately 90 dB at 3 feet (EPA 1971). Based on this equipment noise level, the operation of such equipment, assuming a noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance from the source, may result in exterior noise levels of approximately 50 dB at 300 feet and 60 dB at 95 feet.
The City’s existing General Plan non-transportation standards are 45 dB Leq nighttime, 55 dBA Leq daytime, 65 dBA Lmax nighttime, 70 dBA Lmax daytime (Table S-7.3). Although mechanical equipment is typically shielded from direct exposure (e.g., housed on rooftops, in equipment rooms, or in exterior enclosures), the actual placement of such equipment at future land uses is not known at this time. It is possible that noise levels could exceed the existing General Plan non-transportation standards at existing and proposed noise-sensitive receptors if measures are not taken to reduce such noise exposure.
Attachment 4
1317
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-23 Noise and Vibration
Source: AECOM 2023.
Exhibit 3.12-4 2040 Vehicular Transportation Noise Contours Attachment 4
1318
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-24 Draft SEIR
Solid Waste Collection
Solid waste collection (e.g., emptying large refuse dumpsters, possibly multiple times per week, and the shaking of containers with a hydraulic lift), could result in instantaneous maximum noise levels of approximately 89 dB Lmax at 50 feet. Such activities are anticipated to be very brief, intermittent, and would occur during daytime hours, which are relatively less noise-sensitive times of day. Noises would typically emanate from public rightsof-way, which would normally be separated from outdoor gathering spaces associated with residential uses. Noise associated with garbage collection would not be expected to create single-event noise that would be substantially disruptive to daily activities or cause sleep disturbance.
Parking Lots
Parking lots and parking structures include noise sources, such as vehicles entering/exiting the lot, alarms/radios, and doors slamming. Neither the size (i.e., capacity) or location of parking lots that could be constructed under the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan is known at this time. However, according to the FHWA, parking lots with a maximum hourly traffic volume of approximately 1,000 vehicles per hour either entering or exiting the lot could result in a peak hour and daily noise levels of approximately 56 dB Leq and 63 dB Ldn at 50 feet.
Commercial, Office, and Industrial Activities
Commercial, office, and industrial noise sources include loading dock activities, air circulation systems, delivery areas, and operation of trash compactors and air compressors. Such activities could result in intermittent noise levels of approximately 91 dB Lmax at 50 feet (EPA 1971) and high single-event noise levels from backup alarms from delivery trucks during the more noise-sensitive hours of the day. Under implementation of the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan, it is possible that commercial, office, and industrial activities could produce noise levels could exceed the existing General Plan non-transportation standards of 45 dB Leq nighttime, 55 dBA Leq daytime, 65 dBA Lmax nighttime, and 70 dBA Lmax daytime at existing and proposed noisesensitive receptors, especially if such activities were to occur during the more noise-sensitive hours (e.g., evening, nighttime, and early morning). In addition, if such activities were to occur during these more noise-sensitive hours, noise levels may result in annoyance and/or sleep disruption to occupants of noise-sensitive uses.
Residential, School, and Recreation Activities and Events Noise sources typical of residential activities, schools, recreational areas, and special events include voices and amplified music/speaker systems. Such sources could result in noise levels of approximately 60–75 dB Leq at 50 feet. Such activities would typically occur primarily during the daytime hours. Under implementation of the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan, it is possible that noise levels could exceed the existing General Plan non-transportation standards of 45 dB Leq nighttime, 55 dBA Leq daytime, 65 dBA Lmax nighttime, and 70 dBA Lmax daytime at existing and proposed noise-sensitive receptors, especially if such activities were to occur during the more noise-sensitive hours (e.g., evening, nighttime, and early morning). In addition, if such activities were to occur during these more noise-sensitive hours, noise levels may result in annoyance and/or sleep disruption to occupants of the existing and proposed noise-sensitive land uses.
Attachment 4
1319
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.12-25 Noise and Vibration
Conclusion
The above additional information, updated analysis, and expanded discussion do not change the findings of the 2016 General Plan EIR or Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, and there is no increase in severity of any impact.
Impact NOI-2: Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.12-23 to 3.12-25) found a significant and unavoidable impact related to exposure of vibration-sensitive uses to excessive vibration, notwithstanding the benefit of Mitigation Measure NOI-2, which requires review of proposed vibration-sensitive uses and mitigation of vibration impacts consistent with the standards set in Table S-7.4 of the General Plan. Table S-7.4 includes vibration performance standards for three categories of buildings – Category 1: Buildings where vibration would interfere with interior operations; Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep; and Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime uses. For Category 1, frequent events, the performance standard is 65 VdB; for occasional events, the standard is 65 VdB, and for infrequent events, the standard is 65 VdB. For Category 2, frequent events, the performance standard is 72 VdB; for occasional events, the standard is 75 VdB, and for infrequent events, the standard is 80 VdB. For Category 3, frequent events, the performance standard is 75 VdB; for occasional events, the standard is 78 VdB, and for infrequent events, the standard is 83 VdB.
The General Plan EIR evaluates stationary source vibration, construction-related vibration, traffic vibration, and vibration from train passages. In the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, the City evaluated train vibration as a part of Impact NOI-3 (page 4G-25), finding a less-than-significant impact, and vibration impacts from temporary construction-related heavy equipment use as a part of Impact NOI-4, finding a significant and unavoidable impact notwithstanding benefits provided by Mitigation Measure NOI-4(a) and NOI 4-(b). These mitigation measures, which would continue to apply, as applicable, to development under the Specific Plan, require alternatives to pile driving and the preparation and implementation of a construction vibration monitoring plan, when needed, to reduce potential effects.
As noted above, under the proposed project, the City proposes to update Policy M-4.9, to include areas to which transit could be extended in the future, including Pioneer Bluff, Stone Lock, and Southport Town Center. As noted in the 2016 General Plan EIR, the vibration level at 50 feet produced by a light rail train traveling at 50 miles per hour is approximately 73 VdB (page 3.12-24). Though no light rail or streetcar alignments are set, the City does not anticipate that there would be any Category 1, 2, or 3 uses that are, or would be located in areas where the performance standards outlined in General Plan Table S-7.4.
The Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan updates include minor changes in alignments, updated typical cross sections for new transportation facilities, and policy changes focused on improving bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access. There are no proposed changes that would result in any new vibration impact or increase in severity of any previously disclosed impact.
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 (significant and unavoidable) The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.12-25) found a significant and unavoidable impact attributable to implementing the existing General Plan under Impact NOI-3. As described in the 2016 General Plan EIR, projects implemented under the General Plan could result in a permanent increase in ambient noise, though implementation of Policies S-7.1 through S-7.5, S-7.7 through S-7.10, LU-3.5, LU-6.4, and PFS-1.6 from the Attachment 4
1320
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Noise and Vibration 3.12-26 Draft SEIR
General Plan would have some benefits. The City found in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR under 1993 Impact 4.7-2, 1993 Impact 4.7-3, 1993 Impact 4.7-4, and Impact NOI-1 that development in the Specific Plan Area would be exposed to excessive traffic, rail noise, existing industries, and events at Raley Field, but that this impact could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Please see above under Impact NOI-1 for updates and clarifications pertaining to the proposed project.
The above additional information, updated analysis, and expanded discussion do not change the findings of the 2016 General Plan EIR or Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, and there is no increase in severity of any impact.
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 (significant and unavoidable) The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.12-25) found a significant and unavoidable impact attributable to implementing the existing General Plan under Impact NOI-4. Though proposed construction noise mitigation strategies would reduce potential impacts, the City could not demonstrate that a temporary impact could be avoided in all cases. The Specific Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to construction despite imposing 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.7-1(a) through 4.7-1(c).
The proposed Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan updates do not propose construction activities that would produce more noise or be located adjacent to noise sensitive uses beyond that assumed and disclosed in the previous EIRs. The above additional information, updated analysis, and expanded discussion do not change the findings of the 2016 General Plan EIR or Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, and there is no increase in severity of any impact.
Impact NOI-5: Location within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport and exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (no impact)
West Sacramento does not intersect with any military bases, special use airspaces, or low-level flight paths, and is not located in safety zones or noise contours associated with airfields or airports that are a concern for land use compatibility planning. West Sacramento is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airstrip. There are no airports in the study area. Sacramento International Airport is approximately 6 miles northwest of the city.
According to the Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, West Sacramento is not within the 60 CNEL contour for this airport (Sacramento Area Council of Governments 2013). Sacramento Executive Airport is approximately 1.5 miles from the city (Sacramento Area Council of Governments 1998). The city is approximately 1.5 miles outside the 65 CNEL contour (which does not extend beyond the airport footprint) for this airport.
Impact NOI-6: Location in the vicinity of a private airstrip and exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (no impact)
See above under NOI-5.
Attachment 4
1321
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.13-1 Population and Housing
3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
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.
Attachment 4
1322
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Population and Housing 3.13-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1323
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.14-1 Public Services
3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
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.
Attachment 4
1324
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Public Services 3.14-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1325
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.15-1 Recreation
3.15 RECREATION
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.
Attachment 4
1326
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Recreation 3.15-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1327
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.16-1 Transportation/Traffic
3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Section 3.16, “Transportation and Traffic,” of the 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.16-1 to 3.16-19) described the existing transportation and traffic conditions in the planning area and analyzed the changes that would occur as a result of implementation of the City’s existing General Plan. Section 4H of the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (pages 4H-1 through 4H-24) describes existing transportation conditions associated with implementing the Specific Plan.
This section provides updated information related to the environmental setting, the regulatory setting, and potential adverse physical environmental effects attributable to the implementation of the City’s proposed General Plan Mobility Element Update and Bridge District Specific Plan Update, where applicable.
3.16.1 EXISTING CONDITIONS
REGULATORY SETTING
The regulatory setting in the 2016 General Plan EIR has remained largely unchanged and is hereby incorporated by reference (General Plan EIR, pages 3.16-1 to 3.16-5). The same is true for the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR Transportation section regulatory setting, which is included on pages 4H-4 through 4H-6.
UPDATES TO THE REGULATORY SETTING
State Plans, Policies, Laws, and Regulations
The Caltrans is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, operating, and maintaining the state highway system. Federal highway standards are implemented in California by Caltrans. Any improvements or modifications to the state highway system would need to be approved by Caltrans. (The proposed project does not propose any such modifications).
Caltrans’ Local Development – Intergovernmental Review Program Interim Guidance (Caltrans, December 2020) provides guidance on the evaluation of traffic impacts to State highway facilities. The document recommends that CEQA reviewers comment on VMT, “applying local agency thresholds or absent those, thresholds recommended in adopted CEQA Guidelines or Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR’s) approved Technical Advisory.”
Senate Bill 743
SB 743 created a process to change the way that transportation impacts are analyzed under CEQA. Specifically, SB 743 required the OPR to amend the CEQA Guidelines to provide an alternative to level of service (LOS) for evaluating transportation impacts, as well as recommend methodologies and significance thresholds. SB 743 does not change the discretion that lead agencies have to select methodology or define significance thresholds.
Under SB 743, the focus of transportation analysis essentially shifted from the social inconvenience of traffic congestion to adverse physical effects associated with vehicular travel demand. Measurements of transportation impacts may include VMT, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated. Vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, has long been a common metric to use to measure travel demand. A VMT is one vehicle traveling on a roadway for one mile. Many communities have been estimating and Attachment 4
1328
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Transportation/Traffic 3.16-2 Draft SEIR
developing policy related to VMT for years, including estimates and goals for VMT per person, VMT per employee, or other methods of normalization. SB 743 directed revisions to the CEQA Guidelines that would create criteria for assessing travel demand, such as “vehicle miles traveled, vehicle miles traveled per capita, automobile trip generation rates, or automobile trips generated” (Public Resources Code Section 21099[b][1]).
Once the CEQA Guidelines went into effect on July 1, 2020, delay related to congestion was no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA (OPR 2018).
In other words, SB 743 changed the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts to drivers, to measuring the impact of driving. Land use projects with one or more of the following characteristics would have lesser VMT impacts:
► Higher land use densities
► Mix of project uses
► Support of a citywide jobs-housing balance (i.e., provide housing in a job rich area, or vice versa) ► Proximity to the core of a region and regional destinations ► Proximity to high-quality transit service
► Located in highly walkable or bikeable areas
This shift in transportation impact criteria is expected to better align transportation impact analysis and mitigation outcomes with the State’s goals to reduce GHG emissions, encourage infill development, and improve public health through more active transportation. Specific to SB 743, Section 15064.3(c) of the revised Guidelines states that, “a lead agency may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately. Beginning on July 1, 2020, the provisions of this section shall apply statewide.” Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(2) states that, “upon certification of the guidelines by the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency pursuant to this section, automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion, shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the Guidelines.”
Although the State’s Office of Planning and Research provides recommendations for adopting new VMT analysis guidelines, lead agencies have the final say in designing their methodology. Lead agencies must select their preferred method of estimating and forecasting VMT, their preferred significance thresholds for baseline and cumulative conditions, and the mitigation strategies they consider feasible. Lead agencies’ methodology should seek to align with SB 743’s goals to promote infill development, reduce GHGs, and reduce VMT.
Regional and Local Plans, Policies, Laws, and Regulations SACOG Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy SACOG is responsible for preparing the Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) every four years in coordination with the 22 cities and 6 counties in the greater Sacramento region.
The MTP/SCS proactively links land use, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation needs. The current adopted 2020 MTP/SCS is for the years 2020 to 2040. Goals of the MTP/SCS are:
► Build vibrant places for today’s and tomorrow’s residents. ► Foster the next generation of mobility solutions.
► Modernize the way we pay for transportation infrastructure.
Attachment 4
1329
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.16-3 Transportation/Traffic
► Build and maintain a safe, reliable, and multimodal transportation system.
Federal law requires the MTP to conform to air quality goals for the region, satisfy financial constraints such that all proposed projects can be reasonably funded, and undergo extensive public review. State law further requires the MTP process to include careful environmental analysis and review.
The MTP/SCS indicates that VMT per capita in the SACOG region, which dipped significantly during the Great Recession, increased starting in 2011. The MTP/SCS projects a 10-percent reduction in VMT per capita by 2040 for the SACOG region. SACOG has initiated an update to the MTP/SCS, to be called the “2024 Blueprint.” As noted above under “Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” SACOG has 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.13 Local
2018 West Sacramento Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan Following certification of the previous EIRs, the City prepared the 2018 West Sacramento Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan, which identifies transportation needs and priority improvements.14
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing environmental setting is provided in the 2016 General Plan EIR (General Plan EIR, pages 3.16-5 to
3.16-9) and pages 4H-1 through 4H-4 of the Bridget District Specific Plan EIR.
UPDATE TO ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The City has collected updated traffic counts for many of the city’s primary streets and roads, which were used to inform the proposed Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update and this SEIR (see Table 3.16-1).
13 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 14 Please see the City’s website for more information:
https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/home/showpublisheddocument/7856/636713099468970000.
Attachment 4
1330
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Transportation/Traffic 3.16-4 Draft SEIR
Table 3.16-1 Updated Existing Traffic Counts
Segment Name
Number
of Lanes
Avg. Daily Traffic
Volume (2022)
C Street between 5th Street and City Limit 2 10,100
Davis Road between Jefferson Boulevard and Antioch Avenue 2 547 Davis Road between Antioch Avenue and South River Road 2 667 Gregory Avenue between Bevan Road and South River Road 2 1,839 Harbor Boulevard between Rice Avenue and West Capitol Avenue 4 19,214 Harbor Boulevard between Reed Avenue and Rice Avenue 4 22,194 Industrial Boulevard between Enterprise Boulevard and Parkway Boulevard 4 7,487 Industrial Boulevard between Parkway Boulevard and Harbor Boulevard 4 12,089 Industrial Boulevard between Harbor Boulevard and Stone Boulevard 4 27,120 Jefferson Boulevard between Sacramento Avenue and West Capitol Avenue 4 17,007 Jefferson Boulevard between West Capitol Avenue and 15th Street 4 30,556 Jefferson Boulevard between 15th Street and Stone Boulevard 4 25,071 Jefferson Boulevard between Stone Boulevard and Lake Washington Boulevard 4 29,311 Jefferson Boulevard between Lake Washington Boulevard and Linden Road (South) 2 18,354 Jefferson Boulevard between Linden Road (South) and Davis Road 2 13,565 Jefferson Boulevard between Davis Road and Southport Parkway 2 4,245 Jefferson Boulevard between Southport Parkway and City Limits (South) 2 1,785 Kegle Drive between Anna Street and Sacramento Avenue 2 7,910 Lake Washington Boulevard between Stone Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard 4 26,972 Lake Washington Boulevard between Jefferson Boulevard and Stonegate Drive 2,4 7,618 Lighthouse Drive between Fountain Drive and A Street 4 4,800 Lighthouse Drive between Fountain Drive and Kegle Drive 4 2,003 Linden Road (North) between Summerfield Drive and Jefferson Boulevard 2 3,334 Linden Road (South) between Summerfield Drive and Jefferson Boulevard 2 1,082 Linden Road between Jefferson Boulevard and Stonegate Drive 2 4,049 Marshall Road between Seymour Avenue and Jefferson Boulevard 2 5,855 Marshall Road between Marshall Road (west end) and Golden Gate Drive 2 2,610 North Harbor Boulevard between Riverbank Road and Reed Avenue 2 4,023 North Harbor Boulevard between City Limits and Riverbank Road 2 5,611 Reed Avenue between Riverside Parkway and Sunset Avenue 4 12,327 Sacramento Avenue between Sunset Avenue and Kegle Drive 4 14,464 Sacramento Avenue between Kegle Drive and 6th Street 2 7,840 5th Street between West Capitol Avenue and Riske Lane 4 11,413 5th Street between Riske Lane and 15th Street 2 13,925
Southport Parkway between Ramco Street and Lake Washington Boulevard 4 23,422 Southport Parkway between Promenade Street and Marshall Road 4 5,417 Southport Parkway between Marshall Road and Jefferson Boulevard 2 1,626 West Capitol Avenue between Enterprise Boulevard and Northport Drive 3 6,879 West Capitol Avenue between Northport Drive and Harbor Boulevard 2 8,817 West Capitol Avenue between Harbor Boulevard and Sycamore Street 4 13,008 West Capitol Avenue between Sycamore Street and Jefferson Boulevard 4 10,558 West Capitol Avenue between Jefferson Boulevard and Grand Street 4 5,223 West Capitol Avenue between Grand Street and 3rd Street 2 10,793 Source: City of West Sacramento 2022
Attachment 4
1331
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.16-5 Transportation/Traffic
3.16.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Since the previous EIRs were certified, the Appendix G checklist questions have been revised to clarify that the social inconvenience of traffic congestion is not an adverse physical environmental impact under CEQA. The updated checklist questions would, in general, guide the City’s transportation impact analysis under the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan, including assessments of whether proposed projects would:
► Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
► Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b) (related to vehicular travel demand)?
► Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ► Result in inadequate emergency access?
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact TRA-1: Deterioration of intersection level of service The 2016 General Plan EIR evaluated changes in level of service for vehicles under Impact TRA-1, TRA-2, TRA3, and TRA-4 on pages 3.16-11 through 3.16-18. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR evaluated changes to vehicular level of service under Impact TRA-1, Impact TRA-2, Impact TRA-3, Impact TRA-4, Impact TRA-5, Impact TRA-6, 1993 Impact 4.5-1, 1993 Impact 4.5-2, 1993 Impact 4.5-8, and 1993 Impact 4.5-9 on pages 4H-12 through 4H-20.
Changes to traffic congestion are not considered an impact under CEQA. There is no supplemental analysis to present in this SEIR.
Impact TRA-2: Deterioration of level of service for freeway ramps and segments The 2016 General Plan EIR evaluated changes in level of service for vehicles under Impact TRA-1, TRA-2, TRA3, and TRA-4 on pages 3.16-11 through 3.16-18. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR evaluated changes to vehicular level of service under Impact TRA-1, Impact TRA-2, Impact TRA-3, Impact TRA-4, Impact TRA-5, Impact TRA-6, 1993 Impact 4.5-1, 1993 Impact 4.5-2, 1993 Impact 4.5-8, and 1993 Impact 4.5-9 on pages 4H-12 through 4H-20.
Changes to traffic congestion are not considered an impact under CEQA. There is no supplemental analysis to present in this SEIR.
Attachment 4
1332
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Transportation/Traffic 3.16-6 Draft SEIR
Impact TRA-3: Increase in daily traffic volumes on arterial or nonresidential collector road segments to from an acceptable level to a level greater than the maximum desirable daily volume The 2016 General Plan EIR evaluated changes in level of service for vehicles under Impact TRA-1, TRA-2, TRA3, and TRA-4 on pages 3.16-11 through 3.16-18. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR evaluated changes to vehicular level of service under Impact TRA-1, Impact TRA-2, Impact TRA-3, Impact TRA-4, Impact TRA-5, Impact TRA-6, 1993 Impact 4.5-1, 1993 Impact 4.5-2, 1993 Impact 4.5-8, and 1993 Impact 4.5-9 on pages 4H-12 through 4H-20.
Changes to traffic congestion are not considered an impact under CEQA. There is no supplemental analysis to present in this SEIR.
Impact TRA-4: Increase in daily traffic volumes on residential streets from an acceptable level to an unacceptable level
The 2016 General Plan EIR evaluated changes in level of service for vehicles under Impact TRA-1, TRA-2, TRA3, and TRA-4 on pages 3.16-11 through 3.16-18. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR evaluated changes to vehicular level of service under Impact TRA-1, Impact TRA-2, Impact TRA-3, Impact TRA-4, Impact TRA-5, Impact TRA-6, 1993 Impact 4.5-1, 1993 Impact 4.5-2, 1993 Impact 4.5-8, and 1993 Impact 4.5-9 on pages 4H-12 through 4H-20.
Changes to traffic congestion are not considered an impact under CEQA. There is no supplemental analysis to present in this SEIR.
Impact TRA-5: Potential to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities The 2016 General Plan EIR found a less-than-significant impact related to policy conflicts (page 3.16-18), noting that the then-proposed Mobility Element of the General Plan focused on promoting, improving, and facilitating non-auto transportation, supported by complementary policies in the Land Use Element focused on promoting infill development, and the development of compact and mixed-use areas that support walking, bicycling, and transit service. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR found a beneficial impact related to pedestrian and bicycle access (1993 Impact 4.5-30, page 4H-23), and a less-than-significant impact with mitigation related to increasing vehicular volumes on streets used by pedestrians and cyclists (1993 Impact 4.5-31, page 4H-23). The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR imposed 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.5-31, which requires streets in the Specific Plan Area to include adequate provisions for pedestrians and bicycles, including signalized crosswalks at major intersections, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes.
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR found a less-than-significant impact related to inconsistency with adopted policies supporting alternatives to vehicular transportation (Impact TRA-11, page 4H-24), and a less-thansignificant impact with mitigation related to consistency with adopted bicycle/pedestrian master plans (Impact TRA-12, page 4H-24). The City imposed Mitigation Measure TRA-12, which requires coordination with SACOG during project-level review to ensure that the project design accounts for the requirements of the respective SACOG-proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
The proposed amendments to the Circulation Diagram in the General Plan Mobility Element evaluated in this SEIR incorporate geometries identified in the Pioneer Bluff and Stone Lock Reuse Master Plan, the Washington Attachment 4
1333
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 3.16-7 Transportation/Traffic
Realized Sustainable Community Strategy, and the Bridge District Specific Plan. The City also proposes certain text changes to the Mobility Element – revisions 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 vehicular travel demand (vehicle miles traveled, or “VMT”). Mobility Element revisions reflect an 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. Proposed changes to the Bridge District Specific Plan include revisions to maps showing backbone circulation and additional exhibits showing typical cross sections to augment the streetscape standards for new street segments. These changes do not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs in a way that would lead to any environmental impact. 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.
Impact TRA-6: Potential to adversely affect public transit operations, or fail to adequately provide access to transit The 2016 General Plan EIR found a less-than-significant impact related to transit operations (page 3.16-19). The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR evaluated transit access under 1993 Impact 4.5-29, finding a less-thansignificant impact with mitigation. The Specific Plan EIR imposed Mitigation Measures 4.5-29(a) through 4.5- 29(d), which require coordination with area transit providers on extending transit, fair-share contributions from Specific Plan Area development to fund the extension of transit, and the provision of shuttle service by development in the Specific Plan Area to major destinations in downtown Sacramento.
The proposed amendments to the Circulation Diagram in the General Plan Mobility Element evaluated in this SEIR incorporate minor changes to the Circulation Diagram and text changes that are supportive of transit. 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.
Impact TRA-7: Potential to result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks Neither the existing General Plan and Specific Plan, nor the proposed updates to the General Plan and Specific Plan have any bearing on air traffic patterns.
Impact TRA-8: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) The City evaluated impacts related to traffic hazards in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR under Impact TRA8, finding a less-than-significant impact with mitigation. The City imposed Mitigation Measure TRA-8, which requires coordination to review modifications to prevent any traffic hazards and temporary measures that may be required during construction.
The proposed amendments to the Circulation Diagram in the General Plan Mobility Element evaluated in this SEIR incorporate minor changes to the Circulation Diagram and text changes to reduce vehicular travel demand.
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.
Attachment 4
1334
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Transportation/Traffic 3.16-8 Draft SEIR
Impact TRA-8: Result in inadequate emergency access?
The City evaluated impacts related to traffic hazards in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR under Impact TRA9, finding a less-than-significant impact, noting that as the Specific Plan builds out, the City will assess the adequacy of emergency access and service needs for individual projects as part of their project review, and that projects will be required to meet City Fire Code and comply with City traffic standards.
The proposed amendments to the Circulation Diagram in the General Plan Mobility Element evaluated in this SEIR incorporate minor changes to the Circulation Diagram and text changes to reduce vehicular travel demand.
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.
Attachment 4
1335
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 4-1 Alternatives Analysis
4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
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.
4.1 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.
4.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
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 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 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 Attachment 4
1336
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Alternatives Analysis 4-2 Draft SEIR
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.
Attachment 4
1337
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 5-1 Other CEQA Considerations
5 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
This chapter presents discussions of additional topics required by CEQA: cumulative impacts, growth-inducing impacts, significant and unavoidable impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes.
5.1 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
This section provides an analysis of cumulative impacts of the proposed project, taken together with other past, present, and reasonably anticipated future projects producing related impacts referred to as “related projects,” as required by Section 15130 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines). This is a three-part exercise:
1. First, to determine whether the overall long-term impacts of related projects, described in the General Plan EIR as the maximum theoretical build-out scenario, when considered together, would create any “significant cumulative impact.”
2. Second, to determine whether the General Plan EIR determined that the General Plan would create any “cumulatively considerable” (and thus significant) incremental contribution to any such cumulatively significant impact. (See CEQA Guidelines Sections 15130[a]-[b], Section 15355[b], Section 15064[h], and Section 15065[c]). If the General Plan led to a “cumulatively significant” impact, the analysis moves to the third step.
3. Third, to determine whether the adoption of the Draft CAP itself would cause a “cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulatively significant impact.”
The proposed project is considered to have a significant cumulative effect if:
1. The cumulative effects of development without the project are not significant and the project’s additional impact is substantial enough, when added to the cumulative effects, to result in a significant impact; or
2. The cumulative effects of development without the project are already significant and the project contributes measurably to the effect. The term “measurably” is subject to interpretation. The standards used herein to determine measurability are that either the impact must be noticeable to a reasonable person, or must exceed an established threshold of significance.
Pursuant to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines: “(t)he discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impacts to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.”
5.1.1 AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The 2016 General Plan EIR concluded that development under the existing General Plan would contribute to cumulative visual impacts in the area. The land use changes associated with those anticipated within the planning horizon of the General Plan and other projects, have the potential to contribute similar impacts on aesthetic/visual Attachment 4
1338
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Other CEQA Considerations 5-2 Draft SEIR
resources. While General Plan policies would ensure that degraded existing visual conditions in the planning area are improved and that new development would be designed sensitive to adjacent land uses, resulting visual changes from the conversion of rural land would be cumulatively considerable. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-3a and AES-3b would reduce the effects of light glare, however, the City concluded under the 2016 General Plan EIR that development under the existing General Plan would still result in substantially increase glare and nighttime lighting and be cumulatively significant. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR found less than significant impacts related to implementation of the Bridge Specific Plan contributing to an intensification of residential, office, and commercial uses within West Sacramento and nearby areas, in conjunction with cumulative development.
The cumulative context for aesthetics is the same as that considered in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge Specific Plan EIR and has not changed in a way that would result in new or significantly increased cumulative impacts compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR or Bridge Specific Plan EIR. The proposed updates to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Plan involve minor changes to the alignment of some transportation facilities and revisions to typical cross sections – there are no proposed updates that would substantially change any visual impact compared to what was disclosed and mitigated under the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge Specific Plan EIR.
5.1.2 AIR QUALITY
As summarized in the 2016 General Plan EIR, the planning area was a nonattainment area for particulate matter (PM), CO, and ozone. Now, the area is in nonattainment for ozone (state one-hour standard), ozone (federal eighthour standard), and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10) (state). The City evaluated air pollutant emissions in the 2016 General Plan EIR, observing that mobile source criteria air pollutants would generally decrease during the planning period due as a result of continuing improvements in engine technology and the retirement of older, higher-emitting vehicles (page 5-4). The General Plan EIR emphasizes that the existing General Plan promotes strategies that are consistent with attainment planning efforts and SACOG’s MTP/SCS by promoting infill development, compact and mixed-use development, and transit-supportive development, concluding that, since the existing General Plan was consistent with these broader regional air quality planning efforts, the General Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative operational impact.
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 any cumulative air quality impact relative to that reported in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
5.1.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The 2016 General Plan EIR evaluates cumulative impacts of cultural and tribal cultural resources on page 5-6 under Subsection 5.1.5, finding that, even with implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with existing policies and regulations, the General Plan, when combined with other cumulative projects may contribute to significant cumulative effects on cultural resources. The City considered the potential loss of tribal cultural Attachment 4
1339
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 5-3 Other CEQA Considerations
resources to contribute to the cumulative loss of such resources that has occurred over time, though the City acknowledged that the presence of possible tribal cultural resources in the planning area is largely unknown. The City considered the tribal cultural resources impact to be cumulatively considerable, even with the implementation of Policy NCR-9.2 Consultation, Policy NCR-9.13 Native American Museum, and Policy NCR9.15 Early Identification of Resources.
The City also adopted Implementation Program 24, which requires:
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.
The City also adopted Implementation Program 25, which requires:
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.
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 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.
5.1.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Please see above under Section 3.7 – GHG emissions impacts are evaluated on a cumulative basis.
5.1.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION
The 2016 General Plan EIR evaluates cumulative noise and vibration effects on pages 5-8 and 5-9 under the Subsection 5.1.11, finding that traffic noise is a significant cumulative impact and that development under the existing General Plan would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution, but that compliance with existing General Plan policies would avoid a cumulative noise impact related to stationary and area noise sources.
The 2016 General Plan EIR identified that, since groundborne vibration dissipates quickly with distance, there is Attachment 4
1340
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Other CEQA Considerations 5-4 Draft SEIR
no significant cumulative impact from the vibration that results from individual development projects over time.
Finally, the 2016 General Plan EIR concludes that the implementation of Policy S-7.5 Frequent, High Noise Events; Policy S-7.8 Train Noise Minimization; and Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Add vibration standards policy to the General Plan would avoid a cumulatively considerable contribution to any significant cumulative noise impact related to locating additional noise- and vibration-sensitive uses near sources of rail noise and vibration.
In general, since the proposed updates to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan involve minor changes to diagrams and revised policies intended to improve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access, these updates do not change any of the cumulative impacts as described in the 2016 General Plan EIR. As noted above, under revised Policy M-4.9, the City has added areas to which transit could be extended in the future, including Pioneer Bluff, Stone Lock, and Southport Town Center. However, there are no existing or planned noise- or vibrationsensitive uses in these areas.
5.1.6 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The 2016 General Plan EIR evaluates cumulative transportation impacts on page 5-10 under the Subsection
5.1.15, observing that regional growth would increase regional traffic congestion under cumulative conditions.
Changes to traffic congestion are not considered an impact under CEQA. There is no supplemental analysis to present in this SEIR.
The 2016 General Plan EIR also notes that development throughout the region would lead to an increase in VMT, which would be a significant cumulative impact, and that implementation of the General Plan would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution.
As noted previously, as a part of work on the MTP/SCS, SACOG indicated that VMT per capita in the SACOG region, which dipped significantly during the Great Recession, increased starting in 2011, though the MTP/SCS projects a 10-percent reduction in VMT per capita by 2040 for the SACOG region. SACOG has 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 –all of the city north of the Deep Water Channel is in a lowVMT 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. The proposed amendments to the Circulation Diagram in the General Plan Mobility Element evaluated in this SEIR 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.
Each of these plans is designed to promote compact, mixed-use, infill development – development that is shown by SACOG to help reduce VMT.
The City also proposes certain text changes to the Mobility Element – revisions 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 vehicular travel demand (vehicle miles traveled, or “VMT”). The update includes a new VMT Reduction Program. Mobility Element revisions reflect an 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 Attachment 4
1341
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 5-5 Other CEQA Considerations
modes. Using updated land use data, vehicular travel demand analysis shows an increase in VMT between present and 2040 of approximately 25 percent. There is no new impact or change in the severity of impact for the proposed project in relation to VMT impacts compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR.
5.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
According to Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR should:
[d]iscuss ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects that would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring the construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss characteristics of some projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
A project has the potential to induce growth both directly and indirectly. Direct growth inducement would result if a project involved construction of new housing. Indirect growth inducement would result, for instance, if implementing a project resulted in substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises); or a construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities that indirectly stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand; and/or removal of an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as improving the capacity of a public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line with excess capacity through an undeveloped area).
Growth inducement itself is not an environmental effect but may lead to environmental effects. These environmental effects may include increased demand on other services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, degradation of air or water quality, degradation or loss of plant or animal habitats, conversion of agricultural and open space land to urban uses, or other adverse impacts.
Based on the definition of growth inducement, a general plan is inherently growth-inducing because it must, by law, accommodate at least projected housing demand. The existing General Plan provided the framework by which public officials will be guided in making decisions relative to future development in West Sacramento.
The proposed updates to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update involve minor changes in alignments for transportation facilities that do not propose to extend such facilities into any areas that are not planned for development. The proposed updates do not propose major increases in employment development that would result in additional demand for residential development or any other features that would induce growth.
5.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to include a discussion of any significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented.
Attachment 4
1342
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Other CEQA Considerations 5-6 Draft SEIR
Chapter 3 of this SEIR provides a detailed analysis of significant and potentially significant environmental impacts related to approval of the proposed project; identifies feasible mitigation measures, where available, that could avoid or reduce these significant and potentially significant impacts; and presents a determination whether these mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. Cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project, including significant impacts, are summarized in Chapter 5 of this SEIR.
The City’s 2016 General Plan EIR identified the following areas where, even with feasible mitigation measures, implementation of the General Plan may nonetheless result in impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less-thansignificant level. ► Aesthetics
• 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 Attachment 4
1343
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 5-7 Other CEQA Considerations
► 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 ► 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. 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.
Significant cumulative impacts are summarized in Section 5.1 of this SEIR.
Attachment 4
1344
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Other CEQA Considerations 5-8 Draft SEIR
5.4 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT
CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
CEQA requires EIRs to address significant irreversible environmental changes caused by a proposed project.
Specifically, the EIR must consider whether “uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2[c]). Nonrenewable resources, as used in this discussion, refer to the physical features of the natural environment: land, air, and waterways.
Approval and implementation of actions related to the updated General Plan and Specific Plan would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources—such as fossil fuel–based energy supplies and constructionrelated materials—as a result of future development that would occur pursuant to the updated General Plan and Specific Plan. Energy resources would be used for construction, heating and cooling of buildings, transportation of people and goods, heating and refrigeration, lighting, and other associated energy needs.
Environmental changes would occur as the physical environment is altered through continued commitments of land and construction materials to development. There would be an irretrievable commitment of labor, capital, and materials used in construction, and open space would be permanently lost over time. Nonrenewable resources would be committed—primarily in the form of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and gasoline) used to support the additional development associated with implementation of the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan.
The consumption of other nonrenewable or slowly renewable resources would result from the development associated with the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan. These resources would include, but would not be limited to, lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, and water.
Future development in West Sacramento as envisioned in the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan would result in the construction of structures, facilities, or infrastructure on lands that are currently undeveloped or developed at a lesser intensity. Development of lands generally would result in their future and permanent commitment to urban use.
5.5 FUTURE USE OF THIS EIR
The analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, as augmented by this SEIR, is considered the first tier of environmental review and creates the foundation upon which future CEQA documents can build. Tiering refers to the concept of a multi-level approach to preparing environmental documents set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines. Project-level environmental analysis can be streamlined to limit the scope of future analysis – particularly for projects that are consistent with the General Plan and the Specific Plan. Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that where a first-tier EIR has “adequately addressed” the subject of cumulative impacts, such impacts need not be revisited in second- and/or third-tier documents. According to Section 15152(f)(3), significant effects identified in a first-tier EIR have been adequately addressed for purposes of later approvals if the lead agency determines that such effects have been either:
A) “mitigated or avoided as a result of the prior [EIR] and findings adopted in connection with that prior [EIR]”; or
Attachment 4
1345
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 5-9 Other CEQA Considerations
B) “examined at a sufficient level of detail in the prior [EIR] to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site-specific revisions, the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project.”
The analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, as augmented by this SEIR, will help determine the need for subsequent environmental documentation, as well as dictate the scope of future CEQA review. According to Section 15168(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, a program EIR can be used to simplify the task of preparing future environmental documents on later activities in the program. A program EIR can:
1) “Provide the basis in an Initial Study for determining whether the later activity may have any significant effects.
2) Be incorporated by reference to deal with regional influences, secondary effects, cumulative impacts, broad alternatives, and other factors that apply to the program as a whole. 3) Focus an EIR on a later activity to permit discussion solely of new effects which had not been considered before.”
In addition, the City will evaluate future public and private projects in light of the General Plan EIR and this Supplement to determine whether future actions are “within the scope” of the EIR, as provided, for example in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c). In such cases, the City may find that no additional CEQA review is required – only that applicable and feasible mitigation measures are incorporated into future proposed projects.
The City intends to make full use of the streamlining allowed under Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines 15183. Under this provision, CEQA only applies to issues “peculiar to the site.” Lead agencies can use EIRs for a general plan, community plan, or other type of plan to analyze the impacts of projects that are consistent with the plan, and greatly limit later analysis to site-specific issues. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f) provides that impacts are not peculiar to the project if uniformly applied development policies or standards substantially mitigate that environmental effect. The mitigating policies and implementation programs of the City of West Sacramento’s General Plan are considered uniformly applied development policies.
Public agencies can use uniformly applied policies or standards to mitigate effects of future projects, precluding the need to analyze these effects, unless new information arises that changes the impact analysis (Public Resources Code Section 21083.3[d]).
Future CEQA documents within the City limits may reference the same mitigating policies and implementation programs, where appropriate, to demonstrate less-than-significant impacts and that later project-level issues are not “peculiar to the parcel” if they have been substantially mitigated by General Plan policies and implementation programs (uniformly applied development policies). Please refer to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 for a more detailed description of impacts that are peculiar to the parcel and the use of uniformly applied development standards and policies.
Attachment 4
1346
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Other CEQA Considerations 5-10 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1347
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 6-1 List of Preparers
6 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
David Tilley ...................................................................................................................................... Principal Planner Seamus Laffey ...................................................................................................................................... Senior Planner Jason McCoy, MST, AICP ................................................................ Transportation and Mobility Division Manager Stephanie Chhan ........................................................................................................... Senior Transportation Planner Steven Rosen ........................................................................................................................... Transportation Planner
6.2 AECOM
J. Matthew Gerken............................................................................................................................. Project Manager Emily Biro ............................................................................................................................... Environmental Planner Deborah Jew ............................................................................................................. Document Production Specialist Issa Mahmodi .............................................................................................................. Noise and Vibration Specialist Nagaraju Kashayi Chowdojirao ............................................................................... Senior Transportation Specialist Karteek Allam ...................................................................................................................... Transportation Specialist Michael Snyder .......................................................................................................................... Senior GIS Specialist Lisa Clement .............................................................................................................................. Senior GIS Specialist Chris O’Neal .......................................................................................................................................... GIS Specialist
Attachment 4
1348
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update List of Preparers 6-2 Draft SEIR
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 4
1349
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM Draft SEIR 7-1 References
7 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2023. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Available:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/california-ambient-air-quality-standards. Accessed March 17, 2023.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). 2022. Yolo County State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Available:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/3qlkfaeq/fhsz_county_sra_11x17_2022_yolo_ ada.pdf. Accessed: January 2023.
California Energy Commission (CEC). 2022. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Available:
https://www.energy.ca.gov/programs-and-topics/programs/building-energy-efficiency-standards/2022- building-energy-efficiency. Accessed August 2022.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement. Sacramento, CA.
Prepared by IFC Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA.
______. December 2020. Traffic Safety Bulletin 20-02-R1: Interim Local Development Intergovernmental Review Safety Review Practitioners Guidance. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/transportation-planning/documents/sb-743/2020-12-22-updated-interim-ldigr-safetyreview-guidance-a11y.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2023.
California Air Resources Board. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available at www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm. Accessed June 2016. ______. 2021a. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. Available online at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed August 2022. ______. 2021b. California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2009 to 2019: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. Available online at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. Accessed March 2022.
Dirksen, Paul. 2023 (March 24). Personal communication to Seamus Laffey, Project Manager for the General Plan update for the City of West Sacramento.
EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. Available:
https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2023.
Federal Highway Administration (FTA). 2018 (September). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA Report No. 0123.
———. 2006 (January). Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05-054. Washington, DC.
Attachment 4
1350
AECOM City of West Sacramento General Plan Update
References 7-2 Draft SEIR
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2017. General Plan Guidelines. Available:
https://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_COMPLETE_7.31.17.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2023.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). 2018. Technical Advisory On Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20180416-743_Technical_Advisory_4.16.18.pdf.
Accessed August 21, 2022.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2013. Documentation to Submit for Environmental Clearance Before Purchasing Real Property with Grant or Leverage Funds. Available:
https://www.hud.gov/sites/documents/OSHC2013-02UPDENVCLPRO.PDF. Accessed May 2, 2023.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2021. AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/. Accessed November 2021.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 1998. Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Available:
https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/sacramentoexecclup.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2023.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). 2013. Sacramento International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Available: https://www.sacog.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/smf-1- front_chapters_1-2-2013-12-12-complete.pdf. Accessed May 2, 2023.
State of California Department of Finance. 2022. DRU Data Hub. California Urban Area Delineations. Available:
https://dru-data-portal-cacensus.hub.arcgis.com/apps/67f7e4aa0bc6450e8a052176a12d86b9/explore.
Accessed March 17, 2023.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971 (December 31st). Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances.
Attachment 4
1351
APPENDIX A
Notice of Preparation
Attachment 4
1352
APPENDIX B
2016 General Plan Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary Table Attachment 4
1353
APPENDIX C
Bridge District Specific Plan EIR Executive Summary Table Attachment 4
1354
CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY ELEMENT AND
BRIDGE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
FINAL 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) 414-5892
October 2023
Attachment 5
1355
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 5
1356
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Input on the Draft SEIR .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Public Review of the Draft SEIR ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Organization of the Final SEIR ....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.4 Use of the Final SEIR ...................................................................................................................... 1-2 2 Comments and Responses to Comments on the Mobility Element Update and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Draft SEIR ........................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Comments on the Draft SEIR .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Comments and Responses to Comments ......................................................................................... 2-2 2 Errata ....................................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................... 3-1 TABLE
Table 2-1 Comments Received on the Draft SEIR ....................................................................................... 2-1
Attachment 5
1357
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 5
1358
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR AECOM City of West Sacramento 1-1 Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of West Sacramento (City) prepared a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Draft SEIR provides additional information necessary to address proposed updates to the Mobility Element of the General Plan Update and the Bridge District Specific Plan (“the proposed project”), supplementing 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) (State Clearinghouse #2015082061 and 2008072024, respectively).
The Draft SEIR and this Final SEIR provide all information necessary to make the previous EIRs adequate for the proposed project.
1.1 INPUT ON THE DRAFT SEIR
To assist the City in determining the focus and scope of analysis for this SEIR, pursuant to the provision of Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to government agencies, special service districts, organizations, and individuals with an interest in or jurisdiction over actions within the city of West Sacramento. The NOP is a brief notice sent by the lead agency to inform the public, interested parties, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and potentially affected federal, state, and local agencies that the lead agency plans to prepare an EIR – in this case, a 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 the Draft 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 the Draft SEIR.
1.2 PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT SEIR
The Draft SEIR (State Clearinghouse Number 2022070293) was received by the State Clearinghouse and circulated for a 45-day public review period from August 11th to September 25th, 2023. The City circulated the document to public agencies, other public and private organizations, those that commented on the NOP, and other interested individuals. Detailed information is available at the City of West Sacramento City Hall and online at: General Plan Updates & Climate Action Plan | City of West Sacramento.
In accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the lead agency, has reviewed the comments received on the Draft SEIR, and has prepared written responses to the comments received.
1.3 ORGANIZATION OF FINAL SEIR
The City prepared this Final SEIR, which includes this Introduction and:
► A full list of agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided comments on the Draft SEIR in Chapter 2 of this Final EIR;
Attachment 5
1359
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR Introduction 1-2 City of West Sacramento
► A summary of comments and responses to comments on the Draft SEIR in Chapter 2 of this Final SEIR; ► A summary of City staff-recommended revisions to the Draft SEIR in Chapter 3, “Errata.” Chapter 2, “Comments and Responses to Comments” of this Final SEIR includes the written comments received on the Draft SEIR and responses to these comments (as required by the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132). The range of responses include providing clarification on the Draft SEIR, explaining why certain comments may not warrant further response, or simply acknowledging the comment for consideration by decision makers when the comment does not relate to the adequacy of the Draft SEIR for addressing potential adverse physical environmental effects of the proposed project.
This document and the Draft SEIR together constitute the Final SEIR that the Planning Commission and City Council will consider.
1.4 USE OF THE FINAL SEIR
The Final SEIR allows the public and the City decision makers an opportunity to review revisions to the Draft SEIR and the Responses to Comments. The Final SEIR serves as the environmental document to inform the City Council’s consideration of the proposed project.
As required by Section 15090(a)(1)-(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency, in certifying a Final EIR, must make the following three determinations:
1. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
2. The Final EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency, and the decision-making body reviewed and considered the information in the Final EIR prior to approving the project.
3. The Final EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis.
As required by Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been certified that identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings (Findings of Fact) for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as identified in the Final EIR.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR.
Attachment 5
1360
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR AECOM City of West Sacramento 1-3 Introduction
A supplemental environmental impact report is used to provide additional information needed to a proposed project that has a certified environmental impact report. The Draft SEIR provides additional information needed to address the proposed changes to the General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan, 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.
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.
The Draft SEIR and this Final SEIR supplement 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.
Attachment 5
1361
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR Introduction 1-4 City of West Sacramento
This page intentionally left blank
Attachment 5
1362
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR AECOM City of West Sacramento 2-1 Responses to Comments on the DSEIR 2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE
MOBILITY ELEMENT UPDATE AND BRIDGE DISTRICT
SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE DRAFT SEIR
This section of the Final SEIR contains a comment letter received during the public review period for the Draft SEIR. In conformance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088(a), the City has prepared written responses to comments related to potentially adverse environmental effects of the proposed project.
2.1 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT SEIR
Table 2-1 identifies a label for each comment letter received, the author of the comment letter, and the date of the comment letter.
Table 2-1. Comments Received on the Draft SEIR
Letter # Commenter Date
1 Brian Ridge August 11, 2023
2.2 COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This section of the Final SEIR contains summaries of the comment letters received during the public review period for the Draft SEIR and the City’s responses to these comments.
Attachment 5
1363
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR Responses to Comments on the DSEIR 2-2 City of West Sacramento RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 1
Comment 1-1 “I have a question about the GHG targets mentioned in policies HS 5.1 & 5.2. Also, did the state specifically mandate that climate action was supposed to be included in the Safety element?” Response: The City appreciates the commenter’s review of the Draft SEIR. This comment does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft SEIR. The Safety Element is not proposed for an update as a part of this proposed project. Regarding the commenter’s reference to greenhouse gas (GHG) targets, for the commenter’s information, the City is separately preparing a Climate Action Plan. For information, please see:
https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/communitydevelopment/planning-division/climate-action-plan.
SB 1035, 2018 (climate resilience and more frequent updating of information) – requires, after the initial revision to the Safety Element to address flooding (Section 65302[g][2]), wildfire (Section 65302[g][3]), climate resilience (Section 65302[g][4]), and the identification of residential developments in hazard areas that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes (Section 65392[g][5]), agencies are required to revise the Safety Element with each revision to the Housing Element or Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, but not less than every eight years to update information related to flooding, fire, and climate resiliency (Government Code Section 65302[g][6]).
SB 379 (2015) amended Government Code Section 65302 to require that if a jurisdiction has not already adopted a LHMP, the Safety Element must be revised to include climate adaptation and applicable resiliency strategies. Specifically, the Safety Element must be updated to: (1) include a set of goals, policies, and objectives based on a vulnerability assessment; (2) identify the risks that climate change poses to the local jurisdiction and the geographic areas at risk from climate change impacts; and (3) include specified information from federal, state, regional, and local agencies. Local agencies are required to consider climate change adaptation and resiliency strategies by using the process in the Adaptation Planning Guide and reflected in referenced tools such as Cal-Adapt (Government Code Section 65302[g][4]). Local agencies should prepare a vulnerability assessment that identifies the risks that climate change poses to the local jurisdiction and the geographic areas at risk from climate change impacts including, but not limited to, flooding hazards and wildfire hazards. (Government Code Section 65302[g][4][A]).
Local agencies should incorporate information that may be available from federal, state, regional, and local agencies that will assist in developing the vulnerability assessment and the adaptation policies and strategies, including, but not limited to, the following:
► Information from the Internet based Cal-Adapt tool.
► Information from the most recent version of the California Adaptation Planning Guide. ► Information from local agencies on the types of assets, resources, and populations that will be sensitive to various climate change exposures.
Attachment 5
1364
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR AECOM City of West Sacramento 2-3 Responses to Comments on the DSEIR ► Information from local agencies on their current ability to deal with the impacts of climate change.
► Historical data on natural events and hazards, including locally prepared maps of areas subject to previous risk, areas that are vulnerable, and sites that have been repeatedly damaged.
► Existing and planned development in identified at-risk areas, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities.
► Federal, state, regional, and local agencies with responsibility for the protection of public health and safety and the environment, including special districts and local offices of emergency services.
State law requires communities to create a set of adaptation and resilience goals, policies, and objectives based on the information above for the protection of the community (Government Code Section 65302[g][4][B]). Local agencies should create a set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives identified above, including, but not limited to, all of the following (Government Code Section 65302[g][4][C]):
► Feasible methods to avoid or minimize climate change impacts associated with new uses of land.
► The location, when feasible, of new essential public facilities outside of at-risk areas, including, but not limited to, hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities, or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in at-risk areas.
► The designation of adequate and feasible infrastructure located in an at-risk area. ► Guidelines for working cooperatively with relevant local, regional, state, and federal agencies.
► The identification of natural infrastructure that may be used in adaptation projects, where feasible. Where feasible, the plan shall use existing natural features and ecosystem processes, or the restoration of natural features and ecosystem processes, when developing alternatives for consideration.
Comment 1-2 “Any mention of plans for a Gas Tax on the 20" Wickland Jet Fuel pipeline from West Cap and Enterprise running thru the Yolo Bypass and Legal Delta primary zone, NPS National Heritage Area, and under the Sacramento River?”
Response: This comment does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft SEIR; the comment is noted. The proposed project includes 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 Attachment 5
1365
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR Responses to Comments on the DSEIR 2-4 City of West Sacramento Sustainable Community Strategy, and the Bridge District Specific Plan. There are no portions of the proposed project that direct changes related to any of the topic raised in this comment.
Comment 1-3 “Relevance to the GP2035 of the presidents recent appropriations to the Dept of the West ‘Great American Outdoors’? Any possibility of any significant detriment to the New OHWM or Levee system improvements or anadromous fish habitat restoration efforts mentioned in the environmental justice element of the general plan?
Response: This comment does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft SEIR; the comment is noted. The proposed project includes 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. There are no portions of the proposed project that direct changes related to any of the topic raised in this comment.
The City is not proposing to adopt an Environmental Justice Element as a part of this action, though the City is planning to prepare such an element in the future.
Comment 1-4 “I apologize if I missed something in the document, but I don't see the proposed "Delta Plan" or how to interact with the Delta Stewardship Council regarding future development and land use or how any other related entities will affect housing density and intensity in the Delta primary zone, or as a result for the city as a whole.”
Response: This comment does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft SEIR; the comment is noted. The proposed project includes 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. There are no portions of the proposed project that direct changes related to any of the topic raised in this comment.
Comment 1-5 “Will infill in the north area be proportional in burden to any of the already disadvantaged priority populations. And what if the State/MPO assigns West Sacramento a new % of RHNA in the upcoming SACOG Blueprint 2025?”
Response: This comment does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft SEIR; the comment is noted. The proposed project includes 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. There are no portions of the proposed project that direct changes related to any of the topic raised in this comment.
In 2021, the City adopted an update to the Housing Element of the General Plan, which was determined by the State Department of Housing and Community Development to be compliant with State housing law. Among many other topics, this Housing Element update addressed disadvantaged communities, demographics, household incomes, and a concept known as “affirmatively furthering fair housing,” which seeks proactively to plan so that residents have Attachment 5
1366
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR AECOM City of West Sacramento 2-5 Responses to Comments on the DSEIR better access to resources and address disparities in housing needs and access to opportunities.
The City is not prepared to speculate on future regional housing needs allocations.
Comment A1-6 “Will the Toll booths and expected bottlenecking of I-80 degrade the air quality of West Sacramento because of expected Schultz Eddy air flow problems compounded by added pollution of extra emissions from bay area commuters circumventing said toll by using west capitol to cut across town to catch another freeway north?”
Response: Air quality effects are addressed in Section 3.3 of the Draft SEIR, including air pollutant emissions attributable to mobile sources. The commenter may be referring to a separately planned project involving improvements to Interstate 80. As noted in the Draft SEIR, “[d]ue 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 (Draft SEIR, page 3.3- 6). It is beyond the scope of the analysis for this proposed project to evaluate future emissions along West Capitol Avenue that may be caused by a possible collection of tolls along I-80.
Comment A1-7 “Are there any mitigation plans, or are the newly added buses at enterprise supposed to encourage park n rides and use of the bike to work trail from Davis going to be sufficient, considering that SMF will be under soo much construction for the majority of the next 5 years.” Response: This comment does not pertain to the adequacy or completeness of the environmental analysis contained in the Draft SEIR; the comment is noted. The proposed project includes 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. There are no portions of the proposed project that direct changes related to any of the topic raised in this comment.
Attachment 5
1367
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR Responses to Comments on the DSEIR 2-6 City of West Sacramento This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 5
1368
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR AECOM City of West Sacramento 3-1 Errata
3 ERRATA
This chapter identifies revisions to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR). The changes are confined to one subsection of the Draft SEIR, as detailed below. Text deletions are shown in strikeout (strikeout) and additions are underlined (underlined). These edits provide clarifications or additional supportive information and do not change the analysis or conclusions of the Draft SEIR.
3.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES
3.1.1 REVISION TO DISCUSSION OF NEW MITIGATION MEASURE AND MITIGATION
MEASURE TEXT
DRAFT SEIR, STARTING ON PAGE 3.5-5
The following clarifying changes have been made to a mitigation measure proposed for the Draft SEIR:
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 result of consultation on with California Native American Tribes as a part of on the General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update and on this Supplemental General Plan EIR, has added Mitigation Measure TCR-1 CUL-2b 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:
Mitigation Measure CULTCR-12b: Consistent with current state statutory and regulatory requirements, invite government to government consultation from with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribesal representatives, assess impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR), and reduce or avoid or preserve in place those TCR, and include culturally appropriate mitigation for adverse significant impacts to identified significant archaeological TCR to the extent feasible. resources, including those which are tribal cultural sources or are associated with a tribal cultural resource.
The City will invite government to government consultation from with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes al representatives that have requested consultation for both public and private sector projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consistent with current state statutory and regulatory requirements. The City will also invite government to government consultation on projects with a Federal nexus, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, where applicable. The City will provide information about the project and its location, and specifically invite traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes al representatives to provide information about known archaeological or 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 City will require projects subject to CEQA that have the potential for adverse significant impacts to potentially significant archaeological resourcesidentified TCR, including those which are tribal cultural sources or are associated with a tribal cultural resource, to include Attachment 5
1369
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR Errata 3-2 City of West Sacramento
government to government consultation with the California Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area, assess the feasibility of avoidance or preservation in place of TCR, and minimize impacts and with provideculturally appropriate, feasible mitigation.
Based on the assessment, recommendations for mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, additional studies to evaluate identified sites, or archaeological tribal monitoring at locations determined by the City in consultation with the California Native American Tribe, supported by substantial evidence and considering the significance of the resource to the California Native American tribe, to be culturally sensitive for TCR. 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,TCR are not identified that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the project activities, then mitigation is completenot needed.
In the event of the discovery of a previously unknown archaeological siteTCR inadvertently exposed or impacted during project implementation,. In such an event, a qualified archaeologist with expertise in TCR in the area will be retained by the project applicant to assess the discovery and provide management mitigation recommendations as necessary. Such recommendations shall be reviewed in consultation with the impacted California Native American Tribe. When a project will impact a known archaeological site, including those determined to be a tribal cultural source,TCR and avoidance is not a feasible option, a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Ttribes, shall evaluate the eligibility of the site for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources according to the criteria in Public Resources Code Section 21074. If the archaeological siteTCR is found to be a historical resource as per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3),Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21074, the qualified archaeologist shall recommend further mitigative treatment, which could may include avoidance or preservation in place. or data recovery. Data recovery on a TCR, if necessary to support the historic resources evaluation, shall only be conducted in accordance with cultural practices and the written consent of the Tribe.
If significant archaeological resourcesTCR that also 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 to reduce impacts is avoidance, or preservation in place if avoidance is infeasible. Options for avoidance and preservation of the resource in place may include, but are not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resource and protect the cultural and natural context, planning greenspace, parks, or other open space to incorporate the resource with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria, treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, or permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21084.3.
If impacts cannot feasibly be avoided through project redesign, culturally appropriate and feasible treatment mitigation measures are will be required. These , which may consist of, but are not limited to, actions, such as data recovery excavationsfurther evaluation, recognition of the Attachment 5
1370
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR AECOM City of West Sacramento 3-3 Errata
significance of the area to the California Native American Tribe, or other mitigation measures determined to be feasible in consultation with the California Native American Tribe. If the recommendation is for further evaluation that includes data recovery, data recovery shall only be conducted in accordance with cultural practices and the written consent of the Tribe. If only part of a site will be impacted by a project, in the event that data recovery is warranted, then data recovery will only be necessary for that portion of the site. Destructive dData recovery of TCR will not be required if the implementing agency City determines prior testing and studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from the resources, or if the impacted California Native American Tribe or Tribes participating in consultation objects to it.
Implementation of the proposed project would not result in new impacts or impacts that would be substantially increased in severity as compared with that those 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 have environmental benefits 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.
Attachment 5
1371
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update FSEIR Errata 3-4 City of West Sacramento
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 5
1372
CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY ELEMENT AND
BRIDGE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS OF FACT
AND STATEMENT OFOVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Prepared for:
City of West Sacramento Community Development Department 1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Contact: Seamus Laffey, Senior Planner
[email protected]
Prepared by:
AECOM
2020 L Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95811
J. Matthew Gerken, Project Manager
(916) 414‐5892
[email protected]
October 2023
Attachment 6
1373
Attachment 6
1374
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento i CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES .................................................................................................. 2 3 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ....................................................................... 4
3.1 EIR Process ...................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Record of Proceedings ...................................................................................................................... 4 4 TERMINOLOGY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 5 5 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA ........................................................................................................... 6
5.1 Intent to Implement Streamlining ..................................................................................................... 8 6 LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 9 7 FINDINGS ON ALTERNATIVES .................................................................................................................... 10 8 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................... 11
8.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................ 11
8.1.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 11
8.1.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 12
8.1.3 Basis for Findings .............................................................................................................. 12
8.2 Agricultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 12
8.2.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 12
8.2.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 12
8.2.3 Basis for Findings .............................................................................................................. 13
8.3 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 13
8.3.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 13
8.3.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 14
8.3.3 Basis for Findings .............................................................................................................. 14
8.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................... 15
8.4.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 15
8.4.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 15
8.4.3 Basis for Findings .............................................................................................................. 15
8.5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 16
8.5.1 Summary description ......................................................................................................... 16
8.5.2 Finding .............................................................................................................................. 17
8.5.3 Basis for Finding ............................................................................................................... 17
8.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources ................................................................................ 19
8.6.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 19
8.6.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 20
8.6.3 Basis for Findings .............................................................................................................. 20
8.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................. 20
8.7.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 20
8.7.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 21
8.7.3 Basis for Findings .............................................................................................................. 21 Attachment 6
1375
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ii City of West Sacramento
8.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................. 23
8.8.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 23
8.8.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 24
8.8.3 Basis for Findings .............................................................................................................. 24
8.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 25
8.9.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 25
8.9.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 26
8.9.3 Basis for Findings .............................................................................................................. 26
8.10 Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................................ 27
8.10.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 27
8.10.2 Finding .............................................................................................................................. 28
8.10.3 Basis for Finding ............................................................................................................... 28
8.11 Population and Housing .................................................................................................................. 29
8.11.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 29
8.11.2 Finding .............................................................................................................................. 29
8.11.3 Basis for Finding ............................................................................................................... 30
8.12 Public Services and Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................... 30
8.12.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 30
8.12.2 Finding .............................................................................................................................. 30
8.12.3 Basis for Findings .............................................................................................................. 31
8.13 Recreation ....................................................................................................................................... 32
8.13.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 32
8.13.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 33
8.13.3 Basis for Findings .............................................................................................................. 33
8.14 Transportation and Traffic .............................................................................................................. 34
8.14.1 Summary Description ........................................................................................................ 34
8.14.2 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 34
8.14.3 Basis for Findings .............................................................................................................. 34 9 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES ..................................................................... 36 10 FINDINGS FOR CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS .......................................................... 37
10.1 Aesthetic Resources ....................................................................................................................... 37
10.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................................... 37
10.3 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 38
10.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................ 38
10.5 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 38
10.6 Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................................ 38
10.7 Public Services and Utilities and Service Systems ......................................................................... 39
10.8 Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................................................... 39
10.9 Growth-Inducing Impacts ............................................................................................................... 40 11 RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED ............................................................................................................. 41 12 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................... 43
12.1 Benefits and Supporting Facts ........................................................................................................ 44 Attachment 6
1376
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento iii CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
12.2 Other Benefits................................................................................................................................. 45
12.3 Region-wide Environmental Benefit .............................................................................................. 46
12.4 Statement of Overriding Considerations ........................................................................................ 47 13 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................... 49 14 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 50 Attachment 6
1377
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update
CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations iv City of West Sacramento
ACRONYMS
AB Assembly Bill
ARB California Air Resources Board
BMP best management practices
Btu/h British thermal units per hour
CAP climate action plan
CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of West Sacramento
CO2 carbon dioxide
CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board EIR Environmental Impact Report
FEIR Final Environmental Impact Report
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps
GHG greenhouse gas
Goleta II Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors HMP Hydromodification Management Plan
LBP lead based paint
Ldn Day-Night Average Sound Level
MTP/SCS Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
PM10 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns proposed project Mobility Element of the General Plan Update and the Bridge District Specific Plan SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SEIR Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
Specific Plan EIR 2016 General Plan EIR and the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR TCP traffic control plan
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
VMT vehicle miles traveled
WUSD Washington Unified School District
YSAQMD Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
Attachment 6
1378
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 1 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of these Findings is to satisfy the requirements of Sections 15091 and 15092 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, associated with approval of an update to the Mobility Element of the 2035 General Plan and the Bridge District Specific Plan.
The CEQA statute (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations Sections 15000, et seq.) state that if it has been determined that a project may or will have significant impacts on the environment, then an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared.
Prior to approval of the project, the EIR must be certified pursuant to Section 15090 of the CEQA Guidelines.
When a certified Final EIR identifies one or more significant environmental impacts, the approving agency must make one or more of the following findings, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each identified significant impact (Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines). ► Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, such project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. ► Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
► Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
No findings are required for impacts that are less than significant and require no mitigation.
Section 15092 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that after consideration of a final EIR, and in conjunction with making the Section 15091 findings identified above, the lead agency may decide whether to approve the project.
A project that would result in a significant environmental impact can be approved only if the agency has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible.
Only when specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, can a project with unmitigated significant impacts be approved. Section 15093 requires the lead agency to document and substantiate any such determination in a Statement of Overriding Considerations. A Statement of Overriding Considerations is included as Section 11 of this document.
Attachment 6
1379
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2 City of West Sacramento 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES
The City of West Sacramento (City) has proposed an update to the Mobility Element of the General Plan 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 previous more detailed planning, engineering, and economic strategies, including 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.
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.
Aside from changes to the Circulation Diagram and functional classification system and changes to cross sections and alignments in the Bridge District Specific Plan, 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, bicycle, and transit access, particularly in areas where development patterns are relatively more supportive of these non-vehicular travel modes.
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.
Attachment 6
1380
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 3 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations ► 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.
Attachment 6
1381
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 City of West Sacramento 3 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed project consists of the Draft SEIR, comments on the Draft SEIR, and the responses to those comments. The Final SEIR also includes and incorporates by reference two EIRs that were previously certified by the City of West Sacramento – The 2016 General Plan EIR and the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (Specific Plan EIR) (State Clearinghouse #2015082061 and 2008072024, respectively).
3.1 EIR PROCESS
Prior to preparing the Draft SEIR, the City released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to solicit the comments of public agencies and interested organizations and individuals 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 9th, 2022. Appendix A of the Draft SEIR includes each comment received on the NOP, along with comments received at the scoping meeting.
The Draft SEIR was released for review and comment by public agencies and interested organizations and individuals and the public review period for the Draft SEIR started on August 11th, 2023. A notice of availability was published, and a copy posted with the Yolo County Clerk. In addition, copies of the Draft SEIR were sent to the State Clearinghouse for circulation to state responsible and trustee agencies. The review period for the Draft EIR closed on September 25th, 2023. The City prepared a Final SEIR (available under separate cover) that includes all comments received during the public review period and written responses to each comment.
3.2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
For the purposes of CEQA and the findings hereinafter set forth, the administrative record consists of those items listed in Section 21167.6(e) of the Public Resources Code. Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(e), the location and custodian of the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which these decisions are presented below.
Seamus Laffey, Senior Planner
City of West Sacramento Community Development Department 1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Attachment 6
1382
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 5 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 4 TERMINOLOGY OF FINDINGS
For purposes of these Findings, the terms avoid and substantially lessen refer to the effectiveness of one or more of the mitigation measures to reduce a significant environmental effect. When an impact remains significant or potentially significant even with implementation of the mitigation, the findings will generally conclude that the impact is significant and unavoidable.
In the process of adopting the mitigation measures identified in the previously certified 2016 Final General Plan EIR, the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, and the Final SEIR, the City Council has also made a determination regarding whether the mitigation proposed in the EIR is feasible. Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
In the process of considering the Final EIR for certification, the City Council has recognized that impact avoidance is not possible in many instances. This is because, under the statutory requirements of Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65300, et seq.), a general plan is intended to provide for additional growth and that growth cannot be accommodated within the city without significant and unavoidable changes to existing conditions. To the extent that significant adverse environmental impacts will not be reduced to a lessthan-significant level with the mitigation, the City Council has found that specific economic, social, and other considerations support approval of the project. The resultant statement of overriding considerations follows the Findings of Fact – please see Section 11 of this document.
Attachment 6
1383
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 City of West Sacramento 5 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The same statute states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Public Resources Code Section 21002 goes on to state that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” The mandates and principles in Public Resources Code Section 21002 are implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which an EIR is required (See Public Resources Code Section 21081[a]; CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a]). For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a proposed project, the approving agency must issue a written finding, supported by substantial evidence, reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions:
(1) The first such finding is that “[c]hanges or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][1]).
(2) The second permissible finding is that “[s]uch changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a][2]).
(3) The third potential conclusion is that “[s]pecific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091,[a][3]).
Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 adds another factor: “legal” considerations (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (“Goleta II”) (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 565).
The concept of “feasibility” also encompasses the question of whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 410, 417). “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors” (Ibid.; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland [1993] 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715; Sierra Club v. County of Napa [2004] 121 Cal.App.4th 1490, 1507-1508).
The CEQA Guidelines do not define the difference between “avoiding” a significant environmental effect and merely “substantially lessening” such an effect. The City must therefore glean the meaning of these terms from the other contexts in which the terms are used. Public Resources Code Section 21081, on which CEQA Attachment 6
1384
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 7 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Guidelines Section 15091 is based, uses the term “mitigate” rather than “substantially lessen.” The CEQA Guidelines therefore equate “mitigating” with “substantially lessening.” Such an understanding of the statutory term is consistent with the policies underlying CEQA, which include the policy that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects” (Public Resources Code Section 21002).
For purposes of these Findings, the term “avoid” refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise significant effect to a less-than-significant level. In contrast, the term “substantially lessen” refers to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a significant effect, but not to reduce that effect to a less-than-significant level. These interpretations are mandated by the holding in Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 519-521, where the court of appeal held that an agency had satisfied its obligation to substantially lessen or avoid significant effects by adopting numerous mitigation measures, not all of which rendered the significant impacts in question to a lessthan- significant level.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 requires only that approving agencies specify that a particular significant effect is “avoid[ed] or substantially lessen[ed].” The findings, for purposes of clarity, in each case will specify whether the effect in question has been reduced to a less-than-significant level, or has simply been substantially lessened but remains significant.
Moreover, although CEQA Guidelines Section 15091, read literally, does not require findings to address environmental effects that an EIR identifies as merely “potentially significant,” these Findings nevertheless fully account for all such effects.
CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091[a],[b]).
In seeking to effectuate the substantive policy of CEQA to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental effects to the extent feasible, an agency, in adopting findings, need not necessarily address the feasibility of both mitigation measures and environmentally superior alternatives when contemplating approval of a proposed project with significant impacts. Where a significant impact can be mitigated to an “acceptable” level solely by the adoption of feasible mitigation measures, the agency, in drafting its findings, has no obligation to consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior alternative that could also substantially lessen or avoid that same impact – even if the alternative would render the impact less severe than would the proposed project as mitigated (Laurel Hills Homeowners Ass’n v. City Council [1978] 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521; see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford [1990] 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 730-731; and Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.
Regents of the University of California [“Laurel Heights I”] [1988] 47 Cal.3d 376, 400-403).
In these Findings, the City addresses the extent to which each significant environmental effect can be substantially lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures.
Nonetheless, the City also addresses the extent to which alternatives described in the EIR are (i) environmentally superior with respect to that effect and (ii) “feasible” within the meaning of CEQA.
Attachment 6
1385
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 8 City of West Sacramento
5.1 INTENT TO IMPLEMENT STREAMLINING
The SEIR, 2016 General Plan EIR, and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR describe the environmental consequences of implementing the 2035 General Plan and the Bridge District Specific Plan, including the modifications to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan included as a part of the project.
The City intends to use the existing CEQA documentation to streamline future environmental review and approval of private and public projects, as well as implementation actions, such as updates to zoning that are consistent with the 2035 General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan. The environmental review has used detailed land use programming for the basis of analysis, with a focus on properties that would be appropriate for development. The SEIR, 2016 General Plan EIR, and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR include quantified estimates in certain impact areas, such as transportation, air quality, GHG emissions, noise, and other topics, based on assumptions as to the amount, type, and character of anticipated land use change. The policy development process was used to vet potential mitigation strategies. The 2035 General Plan process was used to investigate policies and implementation programs that will serve as uniformly applied standards and limit the scope of analysis for projects consistent with the General Plan.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 provides that additional environmental review is not required for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing plan policies for which an EIR has been certified except if necessary to study any significant environmental effects that are particular to the project or site.
Future CEQA documents can reference the policies, implementation programs, and mitigation measures to substantiate that later project-level issues are not “peculiar to the parcel” if they have been “substantially mitigated” by policies, programs, and reduction strategies (uniformly applied development policies) adopted as a part of the 2035 General Plan.
The City will also implement streamlining related to Specific Plan for projects proposed under the Bridge District Specific Plan, such as that provided under CEQA Guidelines Section 15182.
Attachment 6
1386
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 9 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6 LEGAL EFFECT OF FINDINGS
These Findings satisfy the requirements of Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines and, in tandem with the material cited under the heading, “Record of Proceedings,” constitute the City’s evidentiary and policy bases for its decision to approve the project in a manner consistent with the requirements of CEQA. In doing so, these Findings disclose the final disposition of the significant impacts identified in the Final 2016 General Plan EIR, the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, and the Final SEIR, and the reasons for not adopting project alternatives. The City also incorporates by reference all of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. Adoption of the statement of overriding considerations allows the City Council to approve the project, even though it would result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
Attachment 6
1387
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 10 City of West Sacramento 7 FINDINGS ON ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, the 2016 General Plan EIR considered an alternative location alternative and reduced density alternative preliminarily, but rejected them for failure to meet some of the most fundamental project objectives. The Final 2016 General Plan EIR conducted a comparative impact assessment of the No Project Alternative. Based on the impacts identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR and since the No Project Alternative would not fulfill fundamental project objectives, although the No Project Alternative was found to be the environmentally superior alternative, the City rejected this alternative because it does not meet the project objectives. Similarly, the City considered but ultimately rejected alternatives to the proposed Bridge District Specific Plan (then known as the Triangle Specific Plan), including the General Plan Alternative, the Lower Intensity Alternative, and the No Project Alternative.
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 additional information necessary to make the two previously certified EIRs adequate for addressing he proposed project is provided in Draft SEIR Chapter 4.
The proposed Mobility Element updates and changes to typical cross sections and diagrams for transportation facilities in the Bridge District Specific Plan would not increase the severity of any impacts as they were disclosed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific 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 the SEIR. For example, the Mobility Element updates related to reducing vehicular travel demand 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, the SEIR did 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) or Bridge District Specific Plan EIR 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 as a part of the SEIR.
Attachment 6
1388
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 11 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 8 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The following impacts and related mitigation measures are described in detail in the 2016 Final General Plan EIR, the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, and the Draft SEIR under the titles listed below. The descriptive discussions of each of these impacts and mitigation measures are incorporated by reference.
8.1 AESTHETICS
8.1.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
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 2035 General Plan 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, the impact was 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 would be dramatic, and the 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.
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-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 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. This impact was determined to be significant and unavoidable.
In the Bridge District 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.
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 Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
Attachment 6
1389
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 12 City of West Sacramento
8.1.2 FINDINGS
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The mitigation measures and the reasons why they substantially lessen the environmental effect are described below.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
8.1.3 BASIS FOR FINDINGS
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. The General Plan includes numerous policies and standards that will reduce the effects identified in Impacts AES-1 and AES-3. In addition, Mitigation Measure AES-3a, Mitigation Measure AES-3b, and Mitigation Measure AES-3c from the 2016 General Plan EIR will reduce the light and glare resulting from the project (Impact AES-3) by establishing policies that will minimize light spillage at night. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR imposed Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a through 4.4-1c that would reduce potential impacts, but not to a less-than-significant level.
Avoidance of these impacts is infeasible for legal reasons. Government Code Section 65301 requires the City Council to “adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the …city… and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” The General Plan, as amended by the proposed update to the Mobility Element, provides for the long-term development which requires the City to plan for development that will change existing visual character and result in additional light and glare.
8.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
8.2.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of the Draft SEIR, there is no change in agricultural resources impact for the proposed project compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR.
Impact AG-1: Conversion of Important Farmland to nonagricultural use Lands currently being farmed are planned for urbanization, which would remove them from agricultural production. The City found that the 2035 General Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact on agricultural resources due to the planned conversion of existing farmland to non-agricultural use.
8.2.2 FINDINGS
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Attachment 6
1390
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 13 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
8.2.3 BASIS FOR FINDINGS
Permanent conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural uses would occur with build-out of the General Plan.
Avoidance of this impact is infeasible for legal reasons. Government Code Section 65301 requires the City Council to “adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the … city … and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” The General Plan update provides for the long-term development of West Sacramento. This requires the City to authorize future development to occur.
8.3 AIR QUALITY
8.3.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
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 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 Bridge District Specific Plan EIR evaluates operational emissions under 1993 Impact 4.6-3, identifying a significant impact, using the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (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.
As a part of the Draft SEIR for the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update, land use data was revised, 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 constructionrelated emissions associated with implementation of the updated General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan (Draft SEIR, pages 3.3-4 through 3.3-7).
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 is 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 EIR also describes the mitigation benefits attributable to 2035 General Plan policies, including Policies S-5.3 New Development, S-5.7 particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10) Emissions from Construction, and S-5.9 Mitigation Measures.
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. This additional information does not change the findings of either the 2016 General Plan EIR or Specific Plan EIR.
Attachment 6
1391
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 14 City of West Sacramento
8.3.2 FINDINGS
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The mitigation measures and the reasons why they substantially lessen the environmental effect are described below.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
8.3.3 BASIS FOR FINDINGS
General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires incorporation of Air District standard to reduce fugitive dust during construction. The following mitigation measure will reduce the impact by ensuring that construction does not result in excessive release of dust.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement construction dust control mitigation measures described in YSAQMD’s CEQA Handbook
Bridge District Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.6-2(a) requires development within the Specific Plan Area to incorporate standard construction equipment emissions control strategies and Mitigation Measure 4.6-2(b) requires additional reduction strategies if necessary to reduce future project impact to less-than-significant levels, including use of reformulated and emulsified fuels, catalyst and filtration technologies on off-road equipment, and/or modernizing the equipment fleet with cleaner repower and newer engines. Bridge District Specific Plan Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(a) requires new development to comply with the City’s Transportation Systems Management Plan – superseded by Mobility Element Mobility Implementation Program 14. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(b) requires implementation of planned bicycle pathways and 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(c) prohibits wood-burning 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.
With regard to the significant and unavoidable short-term construction related and operational air quality effects, avoidance of these impacts is infeasible for legal reasons. Government Code Section 65301 requires the city to “adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the … city … and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” This requires the City to authorize future development to occur, and given the amount of development required to meet legal requirements, and the fact that air pollutant emissions thresholds are presented on a mass numeric basis, it is not possible to meet the requirements of planning and zoning law while also avoiding exceedance of these thresholds.
Attachment 6
1392
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 15 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
8.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
8.4.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of the 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. The 2016 General Plan EIR evaluated the following potentially significant effects:
Impact BIO-6: Potential for in-water construction projects and maintenance activities to result in the loss or disturbance of special-status fish and their habitats. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-6 would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-7: Potential for land use changes to result in the loss of oak woodland and valley foothill riparian habitat.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-7 would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-12: Potential for land use changes and subsequent development to introduce or spread invasive plant species. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-12 would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-significant level.
Refer to the 2016 General Plan EIR and CEQA Findings of Fact for more detail.
For the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, it was determined that “[m]uch of the Plan Area is still paved, developed, or landscaped” and that “[h]abitat types identified in the 1993 EIR consisted of disturbed grasslands and riparian habitat. Some wetlands were also identified” (City of West Sacramento 2009). As explained in the 2016 General Plan EIR, permitting requirements would apply to any wetland affected by private development projects or public investments implemented under the General Plan, as well as Policy NCR-2.9, which requires no net loss of State and Federally regulated wetlands, other waters of the United States (including creeks, rivers, ponds, marshes, vernal pools, and other seasonal wetlands), and associated functions and values. In addition, the City imposed 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a), 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b), 1993 Mitigation Measure
4.3-3(c), 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.3-5(a), 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.3-5(b), 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.3- 5(c), Mitigation Measure 4.3-5(d), and Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a), Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a), and Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a) to reduce potentially significant impacts of implementation of the Bridge District Specific Plan to a less-than-significant level.
8.4.2 FINDINGS
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2016 General Plan Final EIR. The mitigation measures and the reasons why they substantially lessen the environmental effect are described below.
8.4.3 BASIS FOR FINDINGS
The following mitigation measures will reduce the impacts of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level by minimizing impacts from in-water activities, establishing protections for riparian and cover habitat, and minimizing the potential introduction of invasive plants.
Attachment 6
1393
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 16 City of West Sacramento Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Amend policy NCR-2.13 (Fisheries) to include in-water construction and maintenance activities in the Sacramento River, Deep Water Ship Channel, and Lake Washington Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Amend policy NCR-2.9 (No Net Loss) to include riparian and associated SRA cover habitat and require the use of locally occurring native species Mitigation Measure BIO-12: Amend policies NCR-2.4 (Habitat Surveys) and NCR-2.14 (Public Areas) to avoid the introduction and minimize spread of invasive plants These mitigation measures will work in conjunction with the 2035 General Plan policies cited in the discussion of Impacts BIO-6, BIO-7, and BIO-12 (General Plan Draft EIR, pages 3.4-42 through 3.4-45), including Policies NCR-2.2 Yolo Natural Heritage Program, NCR-2.4 Habitat Surveys, NCR-2.5 Habitat Buffer, NCR-2.8 Habitat Preservation, NCR-2.10 Wetland and Riparian Habitat Protection, NCR-2.11 Riparian Vegetation Maintenance, NCR-3.3 Tree Mitigation Ordinance, NCR-3.8 Property Owner Responsibility, and NCR-4.2 Open Space Buffers. Those policies would be implemented during approval of future development projects under both the City’s General Plan and the Bridge District Specific Plan.
8.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
8.5.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
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, even with 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 changes 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 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.
Attachment 6
1394
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 17 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 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 24 and 25 Mitigation Measure CUL-2.
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 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.20-2(a) and 1993 Mitigation Measure
4.20-2(b). 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].
Implementation of the proposed updates to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan 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.
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.
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.
8.5.2 FINDING
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The mitigation measures and the reasons why they substantially lessen the environmental effect are described below.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
8.5.3 BASIS FOR FINDING
The 2016 General Plan EIR found that, even with 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, there would be a significant and unavoidable impact related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5. These policies would reduce potential impacts by ensuring the Attachment 6
1395
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 18 City of West Sacramento preservation of cultural resources, requiring historic districts in appropriate areas, promoting adaptive reuse and relocation over demolition of historic resources, and requiring new development to be compatible with adjacent historic resources.
The following mitigation measures and Implementation Programs required under the City’s 2035 General Plan and 2016 General Plan EIR would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources by prohibiting the City from approving a project that may adversely affect a significant archaeological resource without an evaluation by a qualified archaeologist, stopping work in the event of a discovery, and implementation of appropriate protection and preservation measures, including a treatment plan, scientific analysis, professional curation, and a reporting:
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Require appropriate treatment for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources
Implementation Program 24
Implementation Program 25
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 requires architectural inventories and development of mitigation to avoid impacts. In addition, the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR requires the following mitigation measures, which would reduce impacts by requiring delineation of cultural resources, monitoring by a qualified archaeologist during excavation, stopping work in the event of discovery of human remains with appropriate actions, and stopping work in the event of a finding of a significant cultural resource with appropriate actions, such as a treatment plan, analysis, curation, and reporting.
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Architectural Inventories during Plan Implementation as necessary 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.20-2(a): [Revised]
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.20-2(b): [Revised] Stop work in case of discovery of human remains 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.20-3: [Revised] Stop work in case of inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources
All of the above-mentioned mitigation would continue to apply to projects implemented under the updated Mobility Element of the General Plan and Specific Plan, as applicable. In addition, the City, as a part of the Supplemental General Plan EIR has added Mitigation Measure TCR-1 to clarify the consultation process and reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, consistent with current state statutory and regulatory requirements:
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Consistent with current state statutory requirements, invite government to government consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes, assess impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR), avoid or preserve in place those TCR, and include culturally appropriate mitigation for significant impacts to identified TCR to the extent feasible.
Please refer to the Draft SEIR for the details of newly proposed Mitigation Measure TCR-1.
Attachment 6
1396
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 19 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations The 2016 General Plan EIR imposed the following mitigation, which would reduce the potential impact by requiring work stoppage in the case of a finding of human remains, and appropriate measures in coordination with the Native American Heritage Commission and the most likely descendant.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implement appropriate treatment for discovery of human remains Avoidance of Impacts CUL-1, CUL-2, and CUL-3, however, is infeasible at the citywide level. Government Code Section 65301 requires the City Council to “adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the … city … and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” The General Plan provides for the long-term development of the city. This requires the City to authorize future development to occur.
Demolition or destruction cannot be mitigated under CEQA (Architectural Heritage Association. v. County of Monterey [2004] 122 Cal. App. 4th 1095; League for Protection of Oakland’s Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of Oakland [1997] 52 Cal. App. 4th 896). Therefore, although the updated General Plan policies would reduce the potential impacts on historical and cultural resources, because the General Plan itself would allow development to occur where potential resources may be affected (e.g., through loss of potential or known historic resources even after following the procedures set forth by federal, state, and local laws), the 2035 General Plan, as amended by the proposed project, could ultimately result in a significant and unavoidable impact.
8.6 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
8.6.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of the 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.
Impact GEO-7: Direct or indirect destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature Although the surficial Holocene deposits in the planning area have a low sensitivity for paleontological resources, the underlying Pleistocene deposits of the Modesto and Riverbank Formations are highly sensitive for paleontological resources. If fossils are present where development is planned, they could be damaged by earthdisturbing activities during construction, such as excavation for foundations, placement of fills, trenching for utility systems, and grading for roads and staging areas. The more extensive and deeper the earth-disturbing activity, the greater the potential for damage to paleontological resources. The General Plan EIR found that there could be a potentially significant impact to unique paleontological impacts that would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level by the adoption of Mitigation Measure GEO-7.
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR does not discuss impacts to unique paleontological impacts separate from archaeological resources, but does include 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.20-3: [Revised], which does address paleontological impacts.
1993 Impact 4.18-1: [Revised] The proposed Plan has the potential for structural damage and injury from groundshaking activities that may include: surface rupture, seismic shaking, liquefaction, and subsidence The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, however, does identify potentially significant seismic effects that are reduced to a less-than-significant level through the imposition of 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.18-1(a).
Attachment 6
1397
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 20 City of West Sacramento 1993 Impact 4.18-3: [Revised] Development of Plan Area would involve site preparation activities (grading, etc.) that may increase the potential for accelerated runoff, erosion, and sedimentation The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR found a potentially significant impact related to erosion and sedimentation that is reduced to a less-than-significant level by 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.18-3(b).
8.6.2 FINDINGS
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the 2016 General Plan Final EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
The mitigation measures and the reasons why they substantially lessen the environmental effect are described below.
8.6.3 BASIS FOR FINDINGS
The following mitigation measures will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level by enacting a policy for the proper treatment of discovered paleontological resources. The measure will be enforced on private development projects and public investments as they are considered for approval by the City.
Mitigation Measure GEO-7: Adopt new goal and policy to protect paleontological resources 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.20-3: [Revised] Stop work in case of inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources (including paleontological resources)
The following mitigation measure was found to reduce the impact of the Bridge District Specific Plan to a lessthan-significant level by requiring a geotechnical report to assess and address the potential impacts associated with liquefaction and other ground-shaking activities.
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.18-1(a)
The following mitigation measure, required by the Bridge District Specific Plan would reduce impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation by requiring compliance with permit requirements, including implementation of best management practices designed to reduce erosion and sedimentation and to protect water quality during construction and operations.
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.18-3(b): [Revised] Comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) and implement erosion and sediment control measure as required
8.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
8.7.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
Impact GHG-1: Generation of greenhouse gas 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.
Attachment 6
1398
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 21 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 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 carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions at buildout, characterizing this as a cumulatively considerable level of emissions (page 4B-2B). 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 Specific Plan EIR, page 4-29).
The updated information on existing and 2040 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions provided in the 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 greenhouse gases
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, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was signed, extending the provisions of Assembly Bill (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. Emissions associated with development in West Sacramento are not currently anticipated to be consistent with the trajectory outlined in Executive Order S3-05 or B-30-15, though a Climate Action Plan is under development (Draft SEIR, page 3.7-7 through 3.7-11).
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.
8.7.2 FINDINGS
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
8.7.3 BASIS FOR FINDINGS
The 2035 General Plan includes policies that will reduce GHG emissions attributable to buildout of the 2035 General Plan, including S-5.3 New Development, S-5.9 Mitigation Measures, S-5.10 Truck Idling, and S-5.11 Public Education (see page 3.7-14 of the Draft EIR for details). In addition, the City’s land use and transportation planning policy regime has and will serve to reduce GHG emissions, particularly the most important source of emissions: transportation. The City’s Land Use Diagram and Land Use Designations allow relatively higher densities and intensities, along with a broader mix of land uses in and around the waterfront and downtown core Attachment 6
1399
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 22 City of West Sacramento areas, along with reinvestment opportunity areas nearby. Policy LU-1.1 and related policies promote land efficient (compact) development patterns with residences and destination uses mixed in close proximity, served by transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities – all features that have been demonstrated reduce mobile-source GHG emissions.
Policies LU-3.7 Complete Neighborhoods and LU-3.8 Walkable Neighborhoods establish similar planning concepts where neighborhoods are organized around community destinations with a highly connected transportation network and development patterns that are pedestrian friendly.
In addition, the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR imposed the following mitigation measures, which would reduce emissions by requiring more energy efficient materials, lighting systems, appliances, and design; improved transit and bicycle access; access to outlets for non-emitting landscape maintenance equipment; water conserving appurtenances; and renewable energy generating features. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.22-2(a): Project developers within the Plan Area shall implement the following conservation/load management measures for commercial development 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.22-2(b): Project developers within the Plan Area shall implement the following conservation/load management measures for residential development Mitigation Measure AQ-2(a): The project proponent shall design buildings to be energy efficient Mitigation Measure AQ-2(b): The project proponent shall require that all contractors implement the following measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(c): Project proponent shall construct new bus stops at convenient locations with pedestrian access to the project developments
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(d): Project proponents shall provide bicycle amenities at each project development site
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
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 British thermal units per hour [Btu/h]) meet the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) Tier II specifications
Attachment 6
1400
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 23 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 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
Mitigation Measure AQ-2(k): The project proponent shall, where feasible, and where the development parcel orientation permits, incorporate principles of passive solar design 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
While the above-described policies and mitigation measures would reduce GHG emissions, avoidance of this impact is infeasible for legal reasons. Government Code Section 65301 requires the City Council to “adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the … city … and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” The General Plan provides for the long-term development of the city. This requires the City to authorize future development to occur. In addition, this will require additional statewide action.
8.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
8.8.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of the 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. 1993 Impact 4.19-1: [Revised] Development of the Triangle Specific Plan Area could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the disturbance of contaminated soil and/or groundwater during construction activities
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR identified a potentially significant impact related to contaminated soil and groundwater that is reduced to a less-than-significant level through the imposition of 1993 Mitigation Measure
4.19-1(a), 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(b), 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(c), 1993 Mitigation Measure
4.19-1(d), 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(e), 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(f), 1993 Mitigation Measure
4.19-1(g), and Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(h).
1993 Impact 4.19-2: [Revised] Implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would require the demolition of existing structures, possibly containing asbestos material or lead paint, exposing construction workers to the associated hazards
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR identified a potentially significant impact related to demolition that is reduced to a less-than-significant level through the imposition of Mitigation Measure 4.19-2(c): [New].
Attachment 6
1401
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 24 City of West Sacramento Impact HAZ-1: [New] Construction in the Plan Area could create a substantial public health or safety hazard through the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR identified a potentially significant impact related to accidental release of hazardous materials that is reduced to a less-than-significant level through the imposition of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: [New] and 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(a).
Impact HAZ-2: [New] Construction activities could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR identified a potentially significant impact related to interference with emergency response that is reduced to a less-than-significant level through the imposition of 2008 Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: [New] Prepare Traffic Control Plan.
8.8.2 FINDINGS
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR. The mitigation measures and the reasons why they substantially lessen the environmental effect are described below.
8.8.3 BASIS FOR FINDINGS
The following mitigation measures, which were imposed in the Bridge District Specific Plan, will reduce potential impacts by requiring investigations, sampling, laboratory analysis, remediation, site closure, runoff controls, spill containment and countermeasures, and handling and disposal, consistent with applicable standards and carried about by qualified professionals and preparation of traffic control plans in coordination with the City. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(a): The City shall require implementation of the recommendations contained in the Wallace Kuhl and Associates 1991 Environmental Site Assessment for further parcel-specific hazardous materials investigation. Any further site investigation shall be conducted by qualified personnel, in accordance with all applicable regulations.
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(b): If the potential for hazardous materials contamination is identified based on the Environmental Site Assessment, or further recommended investigation, sampling shall be conducted by qualified personnel in accordance with all applicable regulations to determine constituent type and levels, and the extent of contamination. Any required remediation activities shall be conducted by qualified personnel in accordance with all applicable regulations, in coordination with the appropriate regulatory agency.
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(c): The City shall require completed remediation and/or site closure approved by the applicable regulatory agency prior to the issuance of grading and demolition permits unless preliminary construction work, such as excavation for building foundations, will occur as part of the remediation process.
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(d): Implement Mitigation Measure 4.18-5(c), which states that dewatering shall comply with applicable requirements established by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Attachment 6
1402
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 25 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Board (including any runoff control requirements) and any applicable local permit requirements and shall be coordinated with City Public Works.
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(e): Extracted groundwater shall be tested for the presence of hazardous materials, and appropriate handling and disposal methods shall be required accordingly. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(f): The City shall require extracted groundwater that is to be discharged to the sanitary sewer to meet standards established by the CVRWQCB, the City, and the wastewater treatment plant in order to reduce the risk of leakage of unacceptable levels of contaminants along the sewer lines, and to assure that the wastewater treatment plant can meet standards established under its NPDES permit, prior to discharge.
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(g): If the CVRWQCB, City, or wastewater treatment plant determine that groundwater extracted during dewatering activities does not meet applicable standards for discharge in to the city sewer system, contractors shall implement groundwater treatment system, that treat groundwater to standards established by the CVRWQCB, City, and regional treatment plant.
Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(h): [New] Require production and implementation of best management practices (BMP) document To minimize the potential for exposure of construction personnel to undiscovered contaminated soil during excavation and grading activities, the applicant will require through contractual obligations that a BMP.
Mitigation Measure 4.19-2(c): [New] If structures are to be demolished, conduct inspection to determine if lead based paint (LBP) is present and appropriately remove and dispose of it.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: [New] Comply with relevant regulations for handling hazardous materials. 2008 Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: [New] Prepare Traffic Control Plan The construction contractor, in coordination with the City, will prepare a traffic control plan (TCP) during the final stage of project design.
The TCP will be included in the construction specifications and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during all phases of construction.
8.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
8.9.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of the 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.
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 The 2016 General Plan EIR found that implementation of the 2035 General Plan will place housing within a 100- year flood hazard area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for West Sacramento, at that time last updated in 1995, show that all areas within the city located outside the main waterways are mapped as Zone X—area protected from the 100-year flood by levee or other structures Attachment 6
1403
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 26 City of West Sacramento subject to possible failure of overlapping during longer floods. This was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact of implementing the 2035 General Plan. 1993 Impact 4.17-1: Increased peak rates of runoff would be generated by the implementation of the proposed specific plan, and could potentially cause localized flooding The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR identified a potentially significant impact related to localized flooding that is reduced to a less-than-significant level through the imposition of 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.17-1: [Revised] Develop and Implement Site-Specific Stormwater Drainage Plans and Specifications.
8.9.2 FINDINGS
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR. The mitigation measures and the reasons why they substantially lessen the environmental effect are described below.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
8.9.3 BASIS FOR FINDINGS
The following mitigation included as a part of the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR would reduce the potential impact related to localized flooding by requiring future projects to incorporate stormwater design standards maintained by the City and designed to avoid increases in localized flooding. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.17-1: [Revised] Develop and Implement Site-Specific Stormwater Drainage Plans and Specifications
The 2035 General Plan includes a substantial commitment to flood protection under Safety Element Goal S-2 (to prevent loss of life, injury, and property damage due to flooding). This includes an extensive set of 38 policies, including S-2.1 Flood Insurance Program, S-2.2 Minimize Risk of Flood Damage, S-2.3 Flooding Evacuation and Rescue Maps, S-2.7 200-Year Flood Protection, S-2.25 Maintenance and Improvement of Levees, and S-2.32 Design and Operation of Critical Facilities.
Avoidance of the impact related to flood protection in the near term is infeasible for legal reasons. Government Code Section 65301 requires the City Council to “adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the … city … and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” The General Plan provides for the long-term development of the city. Government Code Section 65580, et seq. requires the General Plan to “identify adequate sites for housing” and otherwise plan for sufficient development to meet the City’s share of the regional housing need. This requires the City to authorize future development to occur and while the City is coordinating improvements to flood protection consistent with applicable regulatory requirements, it was not economically or technically possible to complete such improvements by the time the 2035 General Plan was adopted in 2016.
Attachment 6
1404
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 27 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
8.10 NOISE AND VIBRATION
8.10.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
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 The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.12-14 through 3.12-23) found that there would be significant and unavoidable noise impacts associated with implementation of the 2035 General Plan – both for temporary construction-related noise and also longer-term traffic noise.
The City found in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR under 1993 Impact 4.7-2, 1993 Impact 4.7-3, 1993 Impact
4.7-4, and Impact NOI-1 that development in the Specific Plan Area would be exposed to excessive traffic, rail noise, existing industries, and events at Raley Field, but that this impact could be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level. The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR under Impact NOI-2 that proposed noise-generating developments could have a potentially significant impact that would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by Mitigation Measure NOI-2. However, the Specific Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to construction despite imposing 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.7-1(a) through 4.7-1(c).
Refer to Draft SEIR Section 3.12, which provides updates to the description of the existing setting, regulatory setting, and impacts attributable to the City’s General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan under the proposed project. The additional information, updated analysis, and expanded discussion in the Draft SEIR does not change the findings of the 2016 General Plan EIR or Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, and there is no increase in severity of any impact.
Impact NOI-2: Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.12-23 to 3.12-25) found a potentially significant impact related to exposure of vibration-sensitive uses to excessive vibration that would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by Mitigation Measure NOI-2.
In the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, the City evaluated train vibration as a part of Impact NOI-3 (page 4G25), finding a less-than-significant impact, and vibration impacts from temporary construction-related heavy equipment use as a part of Impact NOI-4, finding a significant and unavoidable impact notwithstanding benefits provided by Mitigation Measure NOI-4(a) and NOI 4-(b).
The Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan updates include minor changes in alignments, updated typical cross sections for new transportation facilities, and policy changes focused on improving bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access. There are no proposed changes that would result in any new vibration impact or increase in severity of any previously disclosed impact.
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
The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.12-25) found a significant and unavoidable impact attributable to implementing the 2035 General Plan under Impact NOI-3.
Attachment 6
1405
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 28 City of West Sacramento The City found in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR under 1993 Impact 4.7-2, 1993 Impact 4.7-3, 1993 Impact
4.7-4, and Impact NOI-1 that development in the Specific Plan Area would be exposed to excessive traffic, rail noise, existing industries, and events at Raley Field, but that this impact could be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level.
The additional information, updated analysis, and expanded discussion provided by the SEIR do not change the findings of the 2016 General Plan EIR or Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, and there is no increase in severity of any impact.
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
The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.12-25) found a significant and unavoidable impact attributable to implementing the 2035 General Plan under Impact NOI-4. Though proposed construction noise mitigation strategies would reduce potential impacts, the City could not demonstrate that a temporary impact could be avoided in all cases. The impact was considered significant and unavoidable.
The Specific Plan EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact related to construction despite imposing 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.7-1(a) through 4.7-1(c).
The proposed Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan updates do not propose construction activities that would produce more noise or be located adjacent to noise sensitive uses beyond that assumed and disclosed in the previous EIRs. The above additional information, updated analysis, and expanded discussion provided by the SEIR do not change the findings of the 2016 General Plan EIR or Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, and there is no increase in severity of any impact.
8.10.2 FINDING
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR. The mitigation measures and the reasons why they substantially lessen the environmental effect are described below.
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
8.10.3 BASIS FOR FINDING
Avoidance of significant citywide noise impacts under Impacts NOI-1 and NOI-4 is infeasible for legal reasons.
Government Code Section 65301 requires the City Council to “adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the … city … and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” The General Plan provides for the long-term development of the city.
This requires the City to authorize future development to occur. This further development, both through its construction and its contribution to vehicular traffic, will substantially increase noise levels in some portions of the city above low, existing ambient levels, and it is not technically or economically feasible or desirable to construct noise barriers in all locations that would be required to maintain existing ambient noise levels.
Attachment 6
1406
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 29 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations The below mitigation would reduce Bridge District Specific Plan Impacts 4.7-2, 4.7-3, and 4.7-4 by requiring noise attenuation that reduce noise exposure for noise-sensitive uses. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.7-2: [Revised] Utilize noise attenuation materials and design to result in interior noise levels that comply with applicable city interior noise standards Mitigation Measure 4.7-3: [New] Design and implement acoustical treatments so that noise levels in outdoor use areas do not exceed 70 Day-Night Average Sound Level (LDN) 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.7-4(a): Require Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) noise analysis 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.7-4(b): Develop specific mitigation based on UPRR noise analysis Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Retain acoustical consultant to define noise mitigation for new noise-generating land uses
The following mitigation measure proposed as a part of the 2016 General Plan EIR would reduce vibration impacts from future construction activities to a less-than-significant level by requiring new development of vibrationsensitive uses to mitigate vibration exposure consistent with the standards established by the 2035 General Plan.
Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Add Vibration Standards Policy to the General Plan
8.11 POPULATION AND HOUSING
8.11.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of the 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.
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) The City found in the General Plan EIR (page 3.13-6) that development anticipated under the General Plan update would lead to a substantial increase in population in the City’s planning area and a significant and unavoidable impact.
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR found that impacts related to: fostering of population growth and housing construction; extension of public services; and encouraging economic growth would be less than significant (Triangle Specific Plan SEIR, page 5-2).
8.11.2 FINDING
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Attachment 6
1407
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 30 City of West Sacramento
8.11.3 BASIS FOR FINDING
Avoidance of this impact at the citywide level is infeasible for legal reasons. Government Code Section 65301 requires the City Council to “adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the … city … and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” The General Plan as amended provides for the long-term development of the city. Government Code Section 65580, et seq. requires the General Plan to “identify adequate sites for housing” and otherwise plan for sufficient development to meet the City’s share of the regional housing need. This requires the City to authorize future development to occur.
8.12 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
8.12.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of the 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.
Impact PS-1: Potential to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities
The General Plan EIR found that, with the increase in population and overall level of development, there would be an increase in demand for public services that would necessitate the construction of new or expanded public facilities. The impact would be potentially significant, but would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR found that there would be potentially significant effects associated with fire protection facilities, police protection facilities, school facilities, and parks that would be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level (1993 Impact 4.13-1, 1993 Impact 4.12-1, 1993 Impacts 4.11-1 and 4.11-2, 1993 Impact 4.2-1, and 1993 Impact 4.2-4, respectively).
Impact UT-3: Potential to require new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects The 2016 General Plan EIR found that new and expanded stormwater drainage facilities necessary to accommodate the increased stormwater runoff from development under the 2035 General Plan update could lead to significant and unavoidable effects (2016 General Plan EIR, pages 3.17-18 and 3.17-19).
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 2016 General Plan EIR found that, due to uncertainties at that time about the reliability of the water supply under all conditions in the future, development anticipated under the 2035 General Plan could result in insufficient long-term water supplies or a need for new or expanded entitlements. This impact is significant and unavoidable.
8.12.2 FINDING
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR. The mitigation measures and the reasons why they substantially lessen the environmental effect are described below.
Attachment 6
1408
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 31 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
8.12.3 BASIS FOR FINDINGS
Public facilities would be incorporated into future urban development within the City’s planning area to meet additional demand and environmental impacts would generally be mitigated to a less-than-significant level (General Plan EIR, pages 3.14-12 through 3.14-15). However, implementation of mitigation to address potentially significant cultural resources effects would reduce potential impacts associated with implementing the 2035 General Plan by ensuring the preservation of cultural resources, prohibiting the City from approving a project that may adversely affect a significant archaeological resource without an evaluation by a qualified archaeologist, stopping work in the event of a discovery, and implementation of appropriate protection and preservation measures, including a treatment plan, scientific analysis, professional curation, and reporting through the following mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure TCR-1 was added by the SEIR to clarify the City’s approach to avoiding tribal cultural resources effects.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Require appropriate treatment for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Consistent with current state statutory requirements, invite government to government consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes, assess impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR), avoid or preserve in place those TCR, and include culturally appropriate mitigation for significant impacts to identified TCR to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implement appropriate treatment for discovery of human remains Mitigation required by the Bridge District Specific Plan would reduce potential impacts by requiring the Fire Department to review and direct revisions to site plans and designs, executing a fire protection services funding agreement, ensuring appropriate emergency access, demonstrating adequate fire flow, executing a police protection services funding agreement, incorporating alarms and lighting and other features that reduce police services demand, providing private security, paying school impact fees, and providing parks space through in-lieu fees or land dedication or combination thereof.
Attachment 6
1409
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 32 City of West Sacramento 1993 Mitigation Measure 4-13.1: [Revised] The City’s Public Works and Community Development Director will review and approve verification that the following measures have been implemented before issuance of building permits
1993 Mitigation Measure 4-12.1: [Revised] The City’s Public Works and Community Development Director will review and approve verification that the following measures have been implemented before issuance of planning entitlements, design review approvals, and/or issuance of building permits 1993 Mitigation Measure 4-11.1: Development within the Plan Area shall contribute to the construction of new school facilities within the Washington Unified School District (WUSD) in accordance with established impact fee schedules for both residential and commercial space 1993 Mitigation Measure 4-2.1(a): [Revised] The Specific Plan shall include a requirement that all new development comply fully with the park impact fee program and Triangle Park Development Program in effect at the time of the implementation of the mitigation measure With respect to the significant and unavoidable Impact UT-3, Goal PFS-4 (to maintain an adequate level of service in the City’s storm drainage system to accommodate runoff from existing and future development, prevent property damage due to flooding, and improve environmental quality) and associated policies will reduce the potential impact. Construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities would comply with the requirements of the City’s state- approved Stormwater Management Plan. However, the City during drafting of the 2016 General Plan EIR did not have enough specificity with respect to future storm drainage improvements to rule out a significant impact in all cases. With respect to the significant and unavoidable Impact UT-4, policies in the 2035 General Plan, including but not limited to PFS-2.1, PFS-2.2, PFS-2.3, PFS-2.5, PFS-2.6, NCR-5.1, NCR-5.2, and ED-1.10, along with State-required regulations that reduce water demand for new development, would reduce this impact. However, avoidance of the impacts is infeasible for legal and technical reasons. Government Code Section 65301 requires the City Council to “adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the … city … and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears relation to its planning.” The General Plan provides for the long-term development of the city. Government Code Section 65580, et seq. requires the General Plan to “identify adequate sites for housing” and otherwise plan for sufficient development to meet the City’s share of the regional housing need. This requires the City to authorize future development that will lead to this impact and this may require additional legal entitlements to water supply that the City could not secure as of the writing of the 2016 General Plan EIR. Future water supply scenarios through the City’s planning horizon also represent technical uncertainty that set limits on the City’s ability to match future water supply with sustained water demand in all drought scenarios during the writing of the 2016 General Plan EIR.
8.13 RECREATION
8.13.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
As detailed in Section 1.1.4 of the 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.
Attachment 6
1410
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 33 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Impact REC-2: Construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment
The General Plan EIR found that expansion of recreational facilities might have an adverse physical effect on the environment that would be mitigated to a less-than-significant-level by mitigation imposed as a part of the General Plan EIR.
8.13.2 FINDINGS
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the General Plan EIR. The mitigation measures and the reasons why they substantially lessen the environmental effect are described below.
8.13.3 BASIS FOR FINDINGS
The General Plan EIR found that park and recreation facilities typically do not require extensive excavation that might adversely affect cultural resources and that park design, in particular, offers opportunities for avoiding or capping cultural resources. The following mitigation measures will reduce the potential impact by requiring measures for in-water construction and maintenance, as well as private development and public projects to avoid adverse effects to fishery resources in the Sacramento River, Deep Water Ship Channel, and Lake Washington; ensuring the preservation of cultural resources, prohibiting the City from approving a project that may adversely affect a significant archaeological resource without an evaluation by a qualified archaeologist, stopping work in the event of a discovery, and implementation of appropriate protection and preservation measures, including a treatment plan, scientific analysis, professional curation, and reporting. Mitigation Measure TRC-1 was added by the SEIR to clarify the City’s approach to avoiding tribal cultural resources effects.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Amend NCR-2.13 (Fisheries) to include in-water construction and maintenance activities
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Require appropriate treatment for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources
Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implement appropriate treatment for discovery of human remains Mitigation Measure TRC-1: Consistent with current state statutory requirements, invite government to government consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes, assess impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR), avoid or preserve in place those TCR, and include culturally appropriate mitigation for significant impacts to identified TCR to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure WQ-3: Implement a Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) in accordance with the City’s Stormwater Permit
Attachment 6
1411
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 34 City of West Sacramento
8.14 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
8.14.1 SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
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.
1993 Impact 4.5-31: The Plan would increase traffic volumes on surrounding streets which are used by pedestrians and bicycle riders, including Jefferson Boulevard, 3rd Street, and 5th Street The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR found a less-than-significant impact with mitigation related to increasing vehicular volumes on streets used by pedestrians and cyclists (1993 Impact 4.5-31, page 4H-23).
Impact TRA-12: Implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan (now called Bridge District Specific Plan) would result in inconsistency with adopted bicycle/pedestrian master plans The Bridge District Specific Plan found a potentially significant impact that would be reduced to a less-thansignificant-level with mitigation related to consistency with adopted bicycle/pedestrian master plans (Impact TRA-12, page 4H-24).
1993 Impact 4.5-29: Implementation of the Triangle Specific Plan (now called Bridge District Specific Plan) would introduce new development in areas not served by existing transit The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR evaluated transit access under 1993 Impact 4.5-29, finding a less-thansignificant impact with mitigation.
Impact TRA-8: Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) The City evaluated impacts related to traffic hazards in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR under Impact TRA8, finding a less-than-significant impact with mitigation.
8.14.2 FINDINGS
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR. The mitigation measures and the reasons why they substantially lessen the environmental effect are described below.
8.14.3 BASIS FOR FINDINGS
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR imposed 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.5-31, which requires streets in the Specific Plan Area to include adequate provisions for pedestrians and bicycles, including signalized crosswalks at major intersections, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes.
Attachment 6
1412
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 35 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.5-31: Design and implementation of street improvements in the Plan Area will include adequate provisions for pedestrians and bicycles, including signalized crosswalks at major intersections, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes.
The City imposed Mitigation Measure TRA-12, which requires coordination with SACOG during project-level review to ensure that the project design accounts for the requirements of the respective SACOG-proposed bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Mitigation Measure TRA-12: Coordinate with Sacramento Area Council of Governments during Project-level environmental review.
The Specific Plan EIR imposed Mitigation Measures 4.5-29(a) through 4.5-29(d), which require coordination with area transit providers on extending transit, fair-share contributions from Specific Plan Area development to fund the extension of transit, and the provision of shuttle service by development in the Specific Plan Area to major destinations in downtown Sacramento.
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.5-29(a): As development occurs in the Plan area, the City will coordinate with YOLOBUS to extend local bus service and will also coordinate with Regional Transit to extend selected bus lines serving downtown Sacramento to serve streets within the Plan Area. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.5-29(b): The City will continue to coordinate with Regional Transit to extend light rail transit service to serve West Sacramento.
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.5-29(c): [Revised] Development in the Plan Area will contribute a fair share to the capital and operating costs of transit service extensions. 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.5-29(d): Development in the Plan Area will provide shuttle service between the Plan Area and major destinations in downtown Sacramento, until transit service by public transit agencies can be implemented at sufficient levels to meet service standards, as defined by the transit agencies.
The City imposed Mitigation Measure TRA-8, which requires coordination to review modifications to prevent any traffic hazards and temporary measures that may be required during construction.
Mitigation Measure TRA-8: Coordinate with Project proponent during environmental review to ensure potential hazards are identified.
Attachment 6
1413
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 36 City of West Sacramento 9 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 requires that the EIR for a general plan amendment must address any significant irreversible environmental change that would result from implementation of that amendment.
Specifically, per the Guidelines (Section 15126.2[d]), such an impact would occur under the circumstances listed below.
► The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources ► Irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project ► The proposed consumption of resources is not justified Approval and implementation of the City’s General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan, with the modifications proposed as a part of the project, would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuel–based energy supplies and construction-related materials. The energy resource demands would be used for construction, heating and cooling of buildings, transportation of people and goods, heating and refrigeration, lighting, and other associated energy needs.
Implementing the City’s General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan, with the modifications proposed as a part of the project, would result in environmental changes because the physical environment would be altered through continued commitments of land and construction materials to urban development. There would be an irretrievable commitment of materials used in construction and a permanent loss of open space over time. Nonrenewable resources would be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas, and gasoline used to support the additional development anticipated under the General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan.
Implementing the General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan would also result in the consumption of other nonrenewable or slowly renewable resources, including lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, and water. Although renewable energy is employed in West Sacramento, nonrenewable fossil fuel sources would also be required both during construction and, for some amount of time, also during operation of uses anticipated for development under the General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan.
Attachment 6
1414
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 37 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 10 FINDINGS FOR CUMULATIVE AND GROWTH-INDUCING
EFFECTS
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1) requires an EIR to either analyze (a) a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, projects outside of the agency’s control or (b) a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. These plans may include a general plan, a regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for one of these plans, and the projections may be supplemented with additional information. Chapter 5.0, “Other CEQA Considerations,” of the SEIR contains an analysis of the cumulative impacts, pursuant to Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines. The following conclusions related to potentially significant and significant cumulative impacts are reached:
10.1 AESTHETIC RESOURCES
The 2016 General Plan EIR concluded that development under the existing General Plan would contribute to cumulative visual impacts in the area. While 2035 General Plan policies would ensure that degraded existing visual conditions in the City’s planning area are improved and that new development would be designed sensitive to adjacent land uses, the 2016 General Plan EIR determined that visual changes would be cumulatively considerable. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-3a and AES-3b would reduce the effects of light glare, however, the City concluded under the 2016 General Plan EIR that development under the existing General Plan would still result in substantially increase glare and nighttime lighting and be cumulatively significant.
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR found less than significant cumulative impacts related to implementation of the Bridge Specific Plan contributing to an intensification of residential, office, and commercial uses within West Sacramento and nearby areas, in conjunction with cumulative development.
The cumulative context for aesthetics is the same as that considered in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge Specific Plan EIR and has not changed in a way that would result in new or significantly increased cumulative impacts compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR or Bridge Specific Plan EIR.
10.2 AIR QUALITY
As summarized in the 2016 General Plan EIR, the planning area was a nonattainment area for particulate matter (PM), CO, and ozone. Now, the area is in nonattainment for ozone (state one-hour standard), ozone (federal eighthour standard), and particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns (PM10) (state). The General Plan EIR emphasizes that the existing General Plan promotes strategies that are consistent with attainment planning efforts and SACOG’s MTP/SCS by promoting infill development, compact and mixed-use development, and transit-supportive development, concluding that, since the existing General Plan was consistent with these broader regional air quality planning efforts, the General Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative operational impact.
Attachment 6
1415
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 38 City of West Sacramento The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (Impact 4.6-3) found a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to criteria air pollutant emissions that could not be reduced to a less-than-cumulatively considerable level despite the imposition of Mitigation Measures 4.6-3a through 3d.
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 any cumulative air quality impact relative to that reported in the 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
10.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES
The 2016 General Plan EIR found that, even with implementation of mitigation measures and compliance with existing policies and regulations, the 2035 General Plan, when combined with other cumulative projects may contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative effects on cultural resources, including possible tribal cultural resources, notwithstanding the benefits of Policy NCR-9.2 Consultation, Policy NCR-9.13 Native American Museum, Policy NCR-9.15 Early Identification of Resources, Implementation Program 24, and Implementation Program 25, and Mitigation Measure CUL-2.
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 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.
10.4 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Please see above under Section 8.7 of these Findings – GHG emissions impacts are evaluated on a cumulative basis.
10.5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (Impact 4.17-7) found a potentially significant cumulative effect related to construction and operational water quality effects from runoff that is reduced to a less-than-cumulatively considerable level through the Implementation of Revised 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.17-7.
The Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan update would not increase the severity of this water quality impact relative to that reported in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
10.6 NOISE AND VIBRATION
The 2016 General Plan EIR found that traffic noise is a significant cumulative impact and that development under the existing General Plan would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution, but that compliance Attachment 6
1416
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 39 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations with existing General Plan policies would avoid a cumulative noise impact related to stationary and area noise sources.
Since the proposed updates to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan involve minor changes to diagrams and revised policies intended to improve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access, these updates do not change any of the cumulative impacts as described in the 2016 General Plan EIR.
10.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (Impact 4.12-2) found a potentially significant cumulative effect related to police services that is reduced to a less-than-cumulatively considerable level through the Implementation of 1993 Mitigation Measures 4.12 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (Impact 4.2-4) found a potentially significant cumulative effect related to demand for parks that is reduced to a less-than-cumulatively considerable level through the Implementation of 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.2-1a.
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (Impact 4.14-3) found a potentially significant cumulative effect related to demand for potable water that is reduced to a less-than-cumulatively considerable level through the Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.14-1, 4.14-2(a), 1993 Mitigation Measure 4-14-3(c), and 1993 Mitigation Measure 4-14-3(d).
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR (Impact 4.12-2) found a potentially significant cumulative effect related to fire protection services that is reduced to a less-than-cumulatively considerable level through the Implementation of 1993 Mitigation Measure 4-13.1.
Since the proposed updates to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan involve minor changes to diagrams and revised policies intended to improve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access, these updates do not change any of the public services and utilities and service systems cumulative impacts as described in the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
10.8 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The 2016 General Plan EIR notes that development throughout the region would lead to an increase in VMT, which would be a significant cumulative impact, and that implementation of the General Plan would represent a cumulatively considerable contribution.
The City also proposes certain text changes to the Mobility Element – revisions 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 vehicular travel demand (vehicle miles traveled, or “VMT”). The update includes a new VMT Reduction Program. Mobility Element revisions reflect an 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. Using updated land use data, vehicular travel demand analysis shows an increase in VMT between present Attachment 6
1417
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 40 City of West Sacramento and 2040 of approximately 25 percent. There is no new impact or change in the severity of impact for the proposed project in relation to VMT impacts compared to that addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the Specific Plan EIR.
10.9 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 5-11) found that the 2035 General Plan could indirectly induce growth by removing barriers to growth, by creating a condition that attracts additional population or new economic activity, or by providing a catalyst for future growth in the area.
The Bridge District Specific Plan EIR found that the Specific Plan Area would be redeveloped into a downtown urban core consisting of a mixture of uses, including office, retail, commercial, residential, lodging, industrial, government, and institutional uses leading to growth-inducing impacts associated with fostering population growth and housing construction, relocation of industrial uses, extension of public services, and encouraging economic growth.
Since the proposed updates to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan involve minor changes to diagrams and revised policies intended to improve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit access, these updates do not change any of the growth-inducing impacts as described in the 2016 General Plan EIR or the Bridge District Specific Plan EIR.
Attachment 6
1418
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 41 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 11 RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
Under Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of an EIR is required when “significant new information” is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the DEIR for public review but prior to certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting, as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The DEIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15088.5.)
There are no revisions to the Draft SEIR in response to any comment on the Draft SEIR.
There are only minor text changes to the description of a new mitigation proposed as a part of the Draft SEIR to address tribal cultural resources effects. The revisions proposed to this mitigation measure do not change the meaning, intent, or efficacy of the mitigation measure as originally proposed in the Draft SEIR, but merely clarify the mitigation measure text. Please refer to Chapter 3, “Errata” of the Final SEIR, which illustrate the proposed revisions in detail. In consultation with a Native American tribal representative, the City has agreed to make the following minor change to Mitigation Measure TCR-1.
Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Consistent with current state statutory requirements, invite government to government consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes, assess impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR), avoid or preserve in place those TCR, and include culturally appropriate mitigation for significant impacts to identified TCR to the extent feasible.
The City will invite government to government consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes that have requested consultation for both public and private sector projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consistent with current state statutory requirements. The City will also invite government to government consultation on projects with a Federal nexus, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, where applicable. The City will provide information about the project and its location, and specifically invite traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes to provide information about known tribal cultural resources (TCR) Attachment 6
1419
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 42 City of West Sacramento 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 City will require projects subject to CEQA that have the potential for significant impacts to identified TCR to include government to government consultation with the California Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area, assess the feasibility of avoidance or preservation in place of TCR, and minimize impacts with culturally appropriate, feasible mitigation. Based on the assessment, recommendations for mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, additional studies to evaluate identified sites, or tribal monitoring at locations determined by the City in consultation with the California Native American Tribe, based on supported by substantial evidence and considering the significance of the resource to the California Native American tribe, to be culturally sensitive for TCR. If TCR are not identified that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the project, then mitigation is not needed.
The above minor revision to Mitigation Measure TCR-1 does not change the effectiveness of this mitigation measure for reducing potentially significant effects associated with future projects implemented under the updated General Plan and Specific Plan, and does not change any of the analysis or conclusions as presented in the Supplemental EIR.
Attachment 6
1420
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 43 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 12 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This statement of overriding considerations describes the project benefits that outweigh its environmental impacts.
It is adopted in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093:
(a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
(b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.
The 2016 General Plan EIR and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR, as supplemented by the Supplemental General Plan EIR addressing modifications to the Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan EIR identify significant and unavoidable impacts, as listed below, and which are detailed in each of these environmental impact reports – both draft and final.
► Aesthetics, visual character, consistency with City goals and policies related to community character, and new sources of light and glare
► Agricultural resources related to conservation of farmland to urban use ► Air quality, including criteria air pollutant emissions attributable to short-term, construction activities and operations and cumulatively
► Cultural resources
► Greenhouse gas emissions (a cumulative impact)
► Flooding
► Noise and vibration, including short-term demolition and construction-related noise and vibration, as well as transportation noise, including cumulatively
► Growth inducement
► Stormwater facilities
► Water supply
Attachment 6
1421
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 44 City of West Sacramento These impacts are outweighed individually and collectively by the following benefits of the General Plan Update project.
12.1 BENEFITS AND SUPPORTING FACTS
All benefits and supporting facts identified in the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2035 General Plan are applicable to this Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Although the proposed an update to the Mobility Element of the General Plan Update and the Bridge District Specific Plan (“the proposed project”) do not add any new significant and unavoidable impacts, and do not increase the severity of any significant impacts, the City has still described relevant benefits and support facts for the proposed project.
The proposed project enhances the certainty of planning for infill development within targeted reinvestment areas along the waterfront and core of the community. The amendments to the Circulation Diagram in the 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 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. 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. These changes are designed to promote multi-modal access in targeted mixed-use, compact, infill development areas of West Sacramento.
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, bicycle, and transit access, particularly in areas where development patterns are relatively more supportive of these non-vehicular travel modes.
As noted in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted with the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2035 General Plan, Government Code Section 65302, et seq. sets out the essential content requirements for General Plans. The 2035 General Plan ensures that the city’s General Plan complies with these requirements. In particular, the update included extensive new policies (Policies S-1.12 through S- 1.13 and S-2.1 through S-2.44) and maps under Safety Element Goals S-1 and S-2 relating to floodplain management that meet the provisions of Section Attachment 6
1422
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 45 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 65302(g) relating to flood hazard. These updates also ensure that the City meets the requirements of Senate Bill 5 (Chapter 364, Stats. of 2007) related to floodplain management, project approval in recognition of ongoing flood hazard reduction activities, and mandating 200-year flood protection in urbanized areas.
As noted in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted with the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2035 General Plan, the 2035 Mobility Element included measures addressing multi-modal transportation (Goal M-1 and Policies M-1.1 through M-1.10) and complete streets (Goal M-2 and Policies M-2.1 through M-2.14), consistent with Assembly Bill 1358 (Chapter 657, Stats of 2008), the California Complete Streets Act. These goals and policies implement the Complete Streets Act by, among other things: establishing multi-modal corridors (Policy M-1.2); incorporating into new development multi-modal access to civic and commercial centers, employment centers, transit stops/stations, schools, parks, recreation areas, and tourist attractions (Policy M-1.7); ensuring that all new roadway projects and major reconstruction projects provide appropriate and adequate rightsof-way for all users including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and motorists (Policy M-2.3); ensuring that all streets are safe and accessible to people with disabilities and others with limited mobility (Policy M- 2.4); requiring that streets be dedicated, widened, extended, and constructed to provide for a well- connected, walkable community (preferably a grid or modified grid), according to City street design standards and complete streets concepts (Policy M-2.9); and ensuring that in constructing and reconstructing streets that adequate rights-of-way and crossing of rights-of-way be provided for all users including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and motorists (Policy M-2.12).
The proposed modifications to the Mobility Element and those proposed as a part of the 2035 General Plan ensure that the General Plan complies with current statutory requirements for content and avoid the consequences that may occur from inconsistency with current state law.
12.2 OTHER BENEFITS
As noted in the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted with the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2035 General Plan, the General Plan is the foundation of the City’s land use planning and regulatory scheme. It embodies land use goals and policies ranging from agricultural land to healthy communities to urban design. An up-to-date General Plan that complies with current state law and represents the Planning Commission’s and City Council’s land use and transportation goals and policies enables the city to make decisions in a timely and consistent manner. This represents good planning. An up-to-date general plan supports the following key decisions:
► Consideration and approval of land use projects that are consistent with the General Plan, including zone changes that implement the General Plan, conditional use permits, and subdivision maps. These projects implement the vision established by the General Plan for a healthy community that provides parks, “complete streets,” and attractive neighborhoods for its current and future residents. Such projects also enhance the vitality of the city by providing new opportunities for businesses and residents to locate in West Sacramento, and to enable existing businesses and residents to reinvest in their properties. ► Approval of development projects consistent with the regional Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) that advance the policies of the MTP/SCS. Encouraging transit priority projects reduces the growth of automobile use in the city, by building close to transit lines and providing infrastructure connections that encourage non- automobile travel modes. This reduces the growth of “vehicle Attachment 6
1423
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 46 City of West Sacramento miles travelled” in comparison to conventional auto-dependent development patterns, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions and also provides health benefits in the form of reduced automobile air pollutant emissions. Transit priority projects provide the density and intensity of development near transit lines that encourage transit use, including buses and the proposed trolley. These advantages keep the City in the forefront of planning innovation within the Sacramento region. ► Aligning the General Plan with the MTP/SCS, which enhances the City’s regional funding opportunities.
Consistency with the MTP/SCS is important in order to qualify for transportation funding from SACOG.
Planning grants from state agencies such as the Strategic Growth Council (e.g., Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program) are prioritized for qualifying projects consistent with the MTP/SCS.
These can be used to improve the quality of life in West Sacramento by providing affordable housing and reducing the locally borne cost of infrastructure.
► Adoption of a capital improvement program that prioritizes necessary capital improvements in coordination with planned development density and intensity. This ensures that capital improvements such as roads, water lines, and sewer lines are installed or expanded in a cost- effective manner that matches the timing and scope of expected future development so that services can be provided efficiently. ► Establishment and revision of equitable infrastructure and public service financing mechanisms. Land use patterns and the density and intensity of future development are critical to establishing the nexus necessary to support impact fees for the construction of infrastructure needed to support new development. Similarly, infrastructure financing methods such as Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts and Community Facilities Districts rely upon the land use type, density, and intensity within proposed district boundaries for essential assumptions regarding the size of necessary infrastructure, its related cost, and the capacity of planned development to support the proposed infrastructure. Reliable assumptions are needed to ensure that the districts will have the necessary long-term financing capacity. This also applies to financing mechanisms, whether Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts, Community Facilities Districts, or others, that fund services.
12.3 REGION-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT
Senate Bill 375 (Chapter 728, Stats. of 2008) requires the SACOG to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) as part of its MTP/SCS. The purpose of the MTP/SCS is to reduce regional greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light-duty trucks to meet the 2020 reduction target set by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Cities and counties within the region are encouraged to conform their general plans to the MTP/SCS to enable its 2020 target to be met through local land use patterns and policies that reduce regional vehicle miles travelled.
AB 32 (Chapter 488, Stats. of 2006) establishes a statewide greenhouse gas reduction target of 1990 emissions levels by the year 2020. The statute mandates that the ARB quantify the necessary reduction level and identify programs that will enable statewide emissions reductions to meet that target. The SCS programs undertaken by the state’s regional Metropolitan Planning Organizations, such as SACOG, are one of the measures identified in ARB’s “Scoping Plan” (First Update) as important to meeting the statewide greenhouse gas reduction target. (California Air Resources Board 2014)
Attachment 6
1424
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 47 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations The 2035 General Plan, as modified as a part of the proposed project, strengthens the connection between the General Plan and the regional MTP/SCS adopted by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. The goals and policies of the General Plan help the region attain its share of the Scoping Plan’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction attributed to regional SCS efforts. Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a region-wide and statewide benefit of the 2035 General Plan, as modified as a part of the proposed project.
12.4 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City of West Sacramento has independently reviewed the information in the EIR and the record of proceedings and made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or substantially lessen the impacts resulting from the 2035 General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan, as modified as a part of the proposed project, to the extent feasible, by including policies and actions in the General Plan and Specific Plan that mitigate potential environmental impacts to the greatest extent feasible, while balancing the project’s benefits against significant and unavoidable impacts.
Adoption and implementation of the 2035 General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan, as modified as a part of the proposed project, would provide the following economic, social, legal, and other considerable benefits:
1. Promotes environmentally sustainable development through goals and policies that balance the need for adequate infrastructure, housing, and economic vitality with the need for resource management, agricultural preservation, environmental protection, and preservation of quality of life for residents of the city.
2. Implements principles of sustainable growth by concentrating new development around existing and proposed nodes of transportation.
3. Improves mobility options through the development of walkable communities, adequate rights-of-ways, and development proximate to transit.
4. Addresses adverse environmental impacts associated with global climate change by facilitating sustainable development, adopting a climate action plan, and promoting energy efficiency, all which will work in concert to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
5. Enhances the local economy and provides opportunities for future jobs and businesses.
6. Is the product of comprehensive public planning efforts, comprised of the public, staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, and results in a thoughtful balance of community, economic, and environmental interests.
7. Reduces vehicle miles traveled and associated greenhouse gas emissions, air pollutant emissions, and transportation noise.
8. Affirms 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.
9. Addresses gaps in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, particularly in areas where development patterns are relatively more supportive of these non-vehicular travel modes.
Attachment 6
1425
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 48 City of West Sacramento
10. Increases the safety, convenience, and practicality of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes for reaching daily destinations.
Attachment 6
1426
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento 49 CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 13 CONCLUSION
After balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed project, the City Council of the City of West Sacramento finds that the significant unavoidable impacts may be considered “acceptable” due to the specific considerations listed herein, which outweigh the impacts.
The City Council has considered the information presented in the SEIR, as well as public testimony, and the Record of Proceedings. Recognizing that significant unavoidable impacts exist, the Council nevertheless finds that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the impacts.
Having included all feasible mitigation measures as policies and actions and mitigation measures, and recognized all unavoidable significant impacts, the Council hereby finds that each of the separate benefits, as stated herein, are determined to be unto themselves separated overriding considerations, independent of other benefits, and warrant adoption of the revised General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan.
Based on the foregoing findings, the City Council hereby determines that:
1. All significant environmental impacts due to the proposed project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
2. There are no feasible alternatives which would mitigate or substantially lessen the impacts while attaining most or all of the project objectives.
3. Any remaining unavoidable significant environmental impact are acceptable due to the factors stated herein.
Attachment 6
1427
AECOM General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 50 City of West Sacramento 14 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Appendix B - Status of Initial Scoping Plan Measures. Available:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/appendix_b.pdf. Accessed: October 17, 2016.
City of West Sacramento. 2009 (March). Triangle Specific Plan Draft SEIR.
Attachment 6
1428
CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO MOBILITY ELEMENT
AND BRIDGE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE
SUPPLEMENTAL EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Attachment 7
1429
Attachment 7
1430
This page left intentionally blank
Attachment 7
1431
Attachment 7
1432
General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District
Specific Plan Update Supplemental EIR
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of West Sacramento
SCH # 2022070293
Attachment 7
1433
Attachment 7
1434
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento MMRP-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program This page left intentionally blank
Attachment 7
1435
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP-2 City of West Sacramento
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REQUIREMENT
Where a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document has identified significant environmental effects, Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires adoption of a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of a project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.”
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to provide for the monitoring of mitigation measures required of the General Plan Mobility Element and the Bridge District Specific Plan Update (also known as “the project”), as set forth in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR).
The Final SEIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.). As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15163, the Final SEIR provides additional information necessary to address proposed updates to the Mobility Element of the General Plan Update and the Bridge District Specific Plan (“the proposed project”), supplementing 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) (State Clearinghouse #2015082061 and 2008072024, respectively).
The City of West Sacramento (City) is the Lead Agency that must adopt the MMRP for development and operation of the project. This report will be kept on file with the City of West Sacramento Community Development Department, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor, West Sacramento, CA 95691.
The CEQA Statutes and Guidelines provide direction for clarifying and managing the complex relationships between a lead agency and other agencies with implementing and monitoring mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15097(d), “each agency has the discretion to choose its own approach to monitoring or reporting; and each agency has its own special expertise.” This discretion will be exercised by implementing agencies at the time they undertake any of portion of the project, as identified in the EIR.
THE GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AS MITIGATION
As provided by CEQA Guidelines 15097(b), [w]here the project at issue is the adoption of a general plan, specific plan, community plan or other plan-level document (zoning, ordinance, regulation, policy), the monitoring plan shall apply to policies and any other portion of the plan that is a mitigation measure or adopted alternative. The monitoring plan may consist of policies included in plan-level documents.” The City’s annual report regarding General Plan implementation will be used, in part, to supplement this MMRP and monitor the implementation of General Plan policies and implementation programs that are identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR as mitigating potential impacts associated with implementation of the General Plan.
All of the mitigation measures imposed by the 2016 General Plan EIR are in the form of mitigating policies and implementation programs of the 2035 General Plan. The mitigation measures included in this MMRP and detailed in apply to projects proposed within the Bridge District Specific Plan Area.
Attachment 7
1436
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento MMRP-3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES AND PROGRAMS AND SEIR MITIGATION
MEASURES AS UNIFORMLY APPLIED DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND
STANDARDS
The City intends to evaluate future projects proposed under the General Plan and Specific Plan using streamlining allowed under Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines 15183. Under this provision, CEQA only applies to issues “peculiar to the site.” Lead agencies can use EIRs for a general plan, community plan, or other type of plan to analyze the impacts of projects that are consistent with the plan, and greatly limit later analysis to site-specific issues. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f) provides that impacts are not peculiar to the project if uniformly applied development policies or standards substantially mitigate that environmental effect. Public agencies can use uniformly applied policies or standards to mitigate effects of future projects, precluding the need to analyze these effects, unless new information arises that changes the impact analysis (Public Resources Code Section 21083.3[d]).
The mitigating policies and implementation programs of the City of West Sacramento’s General Plan and the mitigation measures included in this MMRP are uniformly applied development policies and standards, as defined in Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines 15183.
PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The intent of the MMRP is to ensure the effective implementation and enforcement of adopted mitigation measures.
The MMRP is intended to be used by City staff and others responsible for project implementation.
This document identifies the individual mitigation measures, the party responsible for monitoring implementation of the measure, the timing of implementation, and space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
The City will oversee monitoring and documenting the implementation of mitigation measures. The applicant and its construction contractor are responsible for fully understanding and effectively implementing all of the mitigation measures contained within this MMRP. Certain mitigation measures also will require that the applicant coordinate or consult with one or more other public agencies in implementing mitigation measures specified herein.
CHANGES TO MITIGATION MEASURES
Any substantive change in the MMRP is required to be reported in writing. Modifications to the mitigation measures may be made by the City, subject to one of the following findings, and documented by evidence included in the public record:
a. The mitigation measure included in the Final EIR and the MMRP is no longer required because the significant environmental impact identified in the Final EIR has been found not to exist, or to occur at a level which makes the impact less than significant as a result of changes in the project, changes in environment conditions, or other factors.
OR,
Attachment 7
1437
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP-4 City of West Sacramento b. The modified or substitute mitigation measure provides a level of environmental protection equal to, or greater than that afforded by the mitigation measure included in the Final EIR and the MMRP; and, c. The modified or substitute mitigation measure or measures do not have significant adverse effects on the environment in addition to, or greater than those which were considered by the responsible hearing parties in their decisions on the Final EIR and the proposed project; and, d. The modified or substitute mitigation measures are feasible, and the City, through measures included in the MMRP or other City procedures, can ensure implementation.
SUPPORT DOCUMENTATION
Findings and related documentation supporting the findings involving modifications to mitigation measures shall be maintained in the project file with this MMRP and shall be made available to the public upon request.
This MMRP will be kept on file at:
City of West Sacramento
Community Development Department
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Attachment 7
1438
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento MMRP-5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE
MOBILITY ELEMENT AND BRIDGE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN UPDATE Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility/ Timing Compliance Verification Date Completed General Plan Mitigation Impact CUL-2: Potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Consistent with current state statutory requirements, invite government to government consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes, assess impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR), avoid or preserve in place those TCR, and include culturally appropriate mitigation for significant impacts to identified TCR to the extent feasible. The City will invite government to government consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes that have requested consultation for both public and private sector projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consistent with current state statutory requirements. The City will also invite government to government consultation on projects with a Federal nexus, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, where applicable. The City will provide information about the project and its location, and specifically invite traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes to provide information about known 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 City will require projects subject to CEQA that have the potential for significant impacts to identified TCR to include government to government consultation with the California Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area, assess the feasibility of avoidance or preservation in place of TCR, and minimize impacts with culturally appropriate, feasible mitigation. Based on the assessment, recommendations for mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, additional studies to evaluate identified sites, or tribal monitoring at locations determined by the City in consultation with the California Native American Tribe, Implementation: City of West Sacramento, project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:Invite consultation with initiation of the CEQA process, implement recommendations for mitigation, if needed, during excavation Attachment 7
1439
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP-6 City of West Sacramento Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility/ Timing Compliance Verification Date Completed supported by substantial evidence and considering the significance of the resource to the California Native American tribe, to be culturally sensitive for TCR. If TCR are not identified that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the project, then mitigation is not needed. In the event of the discovery of a previously unknown TCR inadvertently exposed or impacted during project implementation, a qualified archaeologist with expertise in TCR in the area will be retained by the project applicant to assess the discovery and provide mitigation recommendations as necessary. Such recommendations shall be reviewed in consultation with the impacted California Native American Tribe. When a project will impact a known TCR and avoidance is not a feasible option, a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribe, shall evaluate the eligibility of the site for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources according to the criteria in Public Resources Code Section 21074. If the TCR is found to be a historical resource as per Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21074, the qualified archaeologist shall recommend further mitigative treatment, which may include avoidance or preservation in place. Data recovery on a TCR, if necessary to support the historic resources evaluation, shall only be conducted in accordance with cultural practices and the written consent of the Tribe. If TCR that also meet the definition of historical or unique archaeological resources are identified in the project area, the preferred mitigation to reduce impacts is avoidance, or preservation in place if avoidance is infeasible. Options for avoidance and preservation of the resource in place may include, but are not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resource and protect the cultural and natural context, planning greenspace, parks, or other open space to incorporate the resource with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria, treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, or permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate Attachment 7
1440
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento MMRP-7 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility/ Timing Compliance Verification Date Completed management criteria, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21084.3. If impacts cannot feasibly be avoided through project redesign, culturally appropriate and feasible mitigation measures will be required. These may consist of, but are not limited to, further evaluation, recognition of the significance of the area to the California Native American Tribe, or other mitigation measures determined to be feasible in consultation with the California Native American Tribe. If the recommendation is for further evaluation that includes data recovery, data recovery shall only be conducted in accordance with cultural practices and the written consent of the Tribe. If only part of a site will be impacted by a project, in the event that data recovery is warranted, then data recovery will only be necessary for that portion of the site. Destructive data recovery of TCR will not be required if the City determines prior testing and studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from the resource, or if the impacted California Native American Tribe objects to it.
Specific Plan Mitigation 1993 Impact 4.3-3 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(a): The Specific Plan shall require that grading, trenching, removal of vegetation, installation of piers or any other ground-disturbing activity along the bank or within the Sacramento River shall not be conducted between October 15 and April 15, and all disturbed areas shall be planted or otherwise treated with permanent erosion control techniques prior to November 1. No graded areas shall be allowed to remain unprotected during the rainy season. This provision shall apply to all phases of build-out of the Plan Area.
Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:Throughout site preparation, grading, demolition, and all other ground-disturbing activities 1993 Impact 4.3-3 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(b): The Specific Plan shall require that all requirements of the Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by DFG and/or permits issued by the Corps of Engineers be met.
Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:
Throughout site preparation, grading, demolition, and all other ground-disturbing activities Attachment 7
1441
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP-8 City of West Sacramento Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility/ Timing Compliance Verification Date Completed 1993 Impact 4.3-3 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.3-3(c): Implement Mitigation Measure
4.3-5(b) (see 1993 Impact 4.3-5)
1993 Impact 4.3-5 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.3-5(a): [Revised] Conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting Swainson’s hawks. Prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities between February 15 and September 15, a qualified biologist will conduct a survey of the area within one-quarter (.25) mile of all site disturbance activities to establish the presence or absence of nesting Swainson’s hawks. These surveys shall be conducted in accordance with guidelines provided in Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in the Central Valley (Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 2000). If more than 14 days occur between performance of the pre-construction survey and the start of site disturbance activities, the survey shall be re-conducted.
Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:
Prior to initiation of any site disturbance activities between February 15 and September 15 1993 Impact 4.3-5 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.3-5(b): In accordance with DFG mitigation guidelines, if an active nest is found within a half-mile radius, the Specific Plan shall require that the developer notify DFG and avoid construction on the site during the breeding/nesting period of the Swainson’s hawk or until the young are fledged; or implement the following: The Specific Plan shall specify that, during construction, intensive monitoring of active nests be conducted (funded by the project proponent/developer). The monitoring shall be done by a DFG-approved raptor biologist. Exact implementation shall be coordinated with DFG and will be based upon specific information at the project site.
Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:
Throughout construction activities, as applicable
1993 Impact 4.3-5 1993 Mitigation Measure 4.3-5(c): The Specific Plan shall specify that if a nest tree is to be removed and fledglings are present, the nest tree may not be removed until September 15 or until the DFG has determined that the young are no longer dependent on the nest tree.
Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:
Until September 15 or until the DFG has determined that the young are no longer dependent on the nest tree, as applicable 1993 Impact 4.3-5 Mitigation Measure 4.3-5(d): [New] Document preconstruction surveys for Swainson’s hawks. If no nesting is found, significant impacts are not anticipated. A letter will be submitted to the City of West Sacramento to document findings within seven days of completion of the surveys, and prior to the initiation of siteImplementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:
Attachment 7
1442
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento MMRP-9 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility/ Timing Compliance Verification Date Completed disturbance activities. No further mitigation will be required for impacts to nesting Swainson’s hawks.
Conduct pre-construction surveys prior to any ground-disturbing activities and submit survey report to City within seven days Impact BIO-1: [New] Mitigation Measure BIO-1(a): [New] Conduct preconstruction surveys, establish buffers, and compensate for VELB. VELB has been proposed for delisting. If the VELB is delisted prior to site disturbance, the applicant will ensure through contractual obligations that construction activities comply with whatever measures may be required by the USFWS in the delisting process. If VELB has not been delisted prior to site disturbance, the applicant will implement the following mitigation measures:
A. A preconstruction survey will be conducted in accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol guidelines by a qualified biologist for elderberry shrubs, including stem counts and other measures. This survey will include recording the number of elderberry shrubs that have at least one stem one inch or greater in diameter on the project site, the location of elderberry shrubs in riparian or non-riparian areas, and presence or absence of exit holes.
B. If feasible, a 100-foot buffer will be established around elderberry shrubs with a base diameter greater than one inch. The buffer will be clearly marked by staking or flagging, and no project activity will occur in the buffer areas.
C. If 100-foot buffers are not feasible, the applicant will consult with USFWS and may be required to obtain an incidental take permit. During this consultation, an appropriate mitigation plan will be developed and approved by USFWS. Mitigation may include, but would not be limited to the following:
In areas where complete avoidance is not possible and/or where work will occur within the 100-foot buffer, a buffer of no less than 20 feet will be maintained around any plant that will not be removed. The buffer will be marked by a biologist and will be fenced and signed as a federal threatened species. A trained biologist will conduct training for personnel working on site. Reports are required both before work begins and after work is completed. After work is completed, habitat within the 100-foot buffer must be restored with appropriate native vegetation and a plan consistent with the USFWS guideline Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:Conduct pre-construction surveys prior to any ground-disturbing activities, establish buffer during construction activities, as appropriate, and obtain approval from appropriate resource agencies prior to issuance of grading permit, as appropriate Attachment 7
1443
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP-10 City of West Sacramento Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility/ Timing Compliance Verification Date Completed must be in place and filed with USFWS.
Impacted plants will be transplanted in accordance with the USFWS guidelines to a site that is approved in advance and on which a permanent protection plan is in place. In addition, impacted plants will be mitigated with supplemental plantings of both elderberry plants and with appropriate native plants all consistent with the ratios required by USFWS.
The applicant will purchase mitigation credits from a USFWSapproved mitigation bank at a ratio determined by the USFWS.
Impact BIO-2. [New] Mitigation Measure BIO-2(a). [New] Avoid Disturbance of Tree-, Shrub-, and Ground-Nesting Special-Status and Non-SpecialStatus Migratory Birds and Raptors and Conduct Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys. To avoid and minimize impacts on nesting special-status and non-special-status migratory birds and raptors, the developer or its contractor will implement one or more of the following surveys and restrictions. If feasible, conduct all tree and shrub removal and grading (within annual grasslands) during the nonbreeding season (generally between August 16 and February 15 for most special-status and non-specialstatus migratory birds. If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the breeding season for special-status and non-special-status migratory birds and raptors (generally between February 15 and August 15), a qualified wildlife biologist (with knowledge of the species to be surveyed) shall be retained to conduct the following focused nesting surveys prior to the start of construction and within the appropriate habitat. Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite. Tree-nesting surveys for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite will be conducted before any construction disturbances occurring in or near suitable nesting habitat (woodlands and riparian habitats), and areas supporting large oak or eucalyptus trees) within the construction work area and up to 500 feet outside the construction work area between February 15 and August 15. Loggerhead shrike and Non-Special-Status Migratory Birds and Raptors. Tree- and shrub-nesting surveys for loggerhead shrike and other non-special-status migratory birds and raptors shall be conducted prior to any tree and shrub trimming or removal activities within and immediately adjacent to the construction work area Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:Conduct tree and shrub removal and grading during the nonbreeding season, conduct focused nesting surveys prior to any ground-disturbing activity and treetrimming and removal, as needed, establish and implement buffers during construction, as needed, delay construction until after the breeding season or until the young have fledged, as needed Attachment 7
1444
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento MMRP-11 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility/ Timing Compliance Verification Date Completed between March 1 and August 15.
The nesting surveys should be conducted within 1 week prior to initiation of construction activities that will occur in suitable habitat between February 15 and August 15. If no active nests are detected during these surveys, then no additional mitigation is required. If surveys indicate that special-status or non-special-status migratory bird or raptor nests are in the survey area, a no- disturbance buffer shall be established around the site to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest site until after the breeding season or after a qualified wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged (usually late June to mid-July). The extent of these buffers shall be determined by the biologist (coordinating with DFG) and will depend on the level of noise or construction disturbance, line-of-sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise and other disturbances, and other topographical or artificial barriers. These factors will be analyzed in order to make an appropriate decision on buffer distances. Suitable buffer distances may vary between species. If construction activities are scheduled to occur within an area that supports an active nest site or within an established no-disturbance buffer, construction would be delayed until after the breeding season or until the young have fledged (as determined by the biologist).
Impact BIO-2. [New] Mitigation Measure BIO-2(b). [New] Document negative findings of preconstruction survey. If no nesting is found, significant impacts are not anticipated. A letter will be submitted to the City to document findings within seven days of completion of the surveys, and prior to the initiation of site-disturbing activities. No further mitigation would be required for impacts to nesting birds.
Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:
Conduct pre-construction nesting surveys prior to any ground-disturbing activities and submit survey report to City within seven days Impact BIO-3: [New] Mitigation Measure BIO-3(a): [New] Conduct pre-demolition surveys for bats. A pre-demolition survey for bat species will be performed prior to demolition or removal of any structure or tree on the project site. The survey will be conducted no more than 48 hours prior to demolition or removal. The survey will be performed at dusk hours (one hour before dusk and three hours after or other survey period determined by DFG to adequately determine whether a structure or tree is occupied by bat species) to observe any foraging bat exit and entry behavior from roost sites.
Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:
Conduct pre-construction nesting surveys prior to demolition or removal of any structure or tree, implement avoidance measures, as needed, during construction Attachment 7
1445
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP-12 City of West Sacramento Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility/ Timing Compliance Verification Date Completed Other signs of sites being occupied by bat species will also be noted. If bat species are determined to be present, DFG will be consulted to establish avoidance measures, which will be implemented. Avoidance measures may include establishment of buffer zones around occupied sites during the nursery season (May 1 through October 1). During the non-nursery season, roosting bats may be evicted from buildings proposed for demolition with consent from DFG. 1993 Impact 4.18-1: [Revised]
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.18-1(a): Complete a geotechnical report to assess and address the potential impacts associated with liquefaction and other ground-shaking activities. Project developers within the Plan Area will comply with General Plan Section VII, Goal A, policies 1 and 3 by requiring that prior to construction, a site-specific geotechnical evaluation will be performed by a Certified Engineering Geologist, or a Licensed Geotechnical Engineer to assess seismic conditions including the probability associated with liquefaction, settlement, and lateral spreading using a maximum probable and credible earthquake of 7.0. The evaluation will identify specific geotechnical recommendations for development foundation design to mitigate for seismically induced hazards, as well as, recommendations for adequate building design including excavation and fill requirements for any identified soil constraints. The evaluation will also include an analysis of river bluff stability under static and seismic conditions in coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers, and of site-specific groundwater conditions.
Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:
Submit geotechnical report with application and incorporate recommendations in project design 1993 Impact 4.18-2 [Subsumed under 4.18-1]
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.18-1(a): Complete a geotechnical report to assess and address the potential impacts associated with liquefaction and other ground-shaking activities. Project developers within the plan Area will comply with General Plan Section VII, Goal A, policies 1 and 3 by requiring that prior to construction, a site-specific geotechnical evaluation will be performed by a Certified Engineering Geologist, or a Licensed Geotechnical Engineer to assess seismic conditions including the probability associated with liquefaction, settlement, and lateral spreading using a maximum probable and credible earthquake of 7.0. The evaluation will identify specific geotechnical recommendations for development foundation design to mitigate for seismically induced hazards, as well as, recommendations for adequate building design including excavation and fill requirements for any identified soil constraints.
Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:
Submit geotechnical report with application and incorporate recommendations in project design Attachment 7
1446
Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update AECOM City of West Sacramento MMRP-13 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility/ Timing Compliance Verification Date Completed The evaluation will also include an analysis of river bluff stability under static and seismic conditions in coordination with the US Army Corps of Engineers, and of site-specific groundwater conditions. 1993 Impact 4.18-3: [Revised]
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.18-3(b): [Revised] Comply with the NPDES General Construction Permit from the CVRWQCB and implement erosion and sediment control measure as required. City engineers or their developers with be responsible for construction activities within the Triangle Specific Plan Area will obtain an NPDES General Construction Permit as required when construction projects within the Plan Area disturb more than one acre of land. If the groundwater elevation is high enough and a large amount of dewatering would need to occur that is not covered in the General Construction Permit, an NPDES Low Threat Discharge and Dewatering Permit will be required. As part of the NPDES Permit, general developers or project engineers will develop and implement an SWPPP for the NPDES permit. The SWPPP shall identify at a minimum: Activities that may cause pollutant discharge (including sediment); Erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented (such as soil stabilization, mulching, silt fencing, or temporary desilting/ retention basins), good housekeeping practices (such as road sweeping and dust control), and diversion measures (such as berms) to prevent clear runoff from contacting disturbed areas; Construction BMPs consistent with the requirements of the NPDES permit to reduce the potential for contaminated runoff, such as lining ground-disturbing activities during the winter rainfall period, minimizing exposure to disturbed area and soil stockpiles to rainfall, and minimizing construction work near or within drainage areas; Hazardous material spill prevention and response measure requirements, including lists of materials proposed for use, handling and storage practices, identification of spill response equipment, spill contaminant and clean-up procedures, and identified regulatory notification protocols and contact phone numbers to be followed in the event of a spill. All general contractors will implement measures for construction dewatering activities to ensure the applicable water quality standards and permit limits are maintained. All applicable Notices of Intent (NOIs) and SWPPPs will be prepared before construction is initiated, and implementation will be ongoing throughout the life of the Implementation: Project applicant and contractor(s) Timing:Obtain permit prior to issuance of grading permit, implement BMPs during construction Attachment 7
1447
AECOM Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP-14 City of West Sacramento Impact Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility/ Timing Compliance Verification Date Completed construction phases of Plan implementation. All SWPPPs and plans and specifications for construction of water quality BMPs will be submitted to the City for approval prior to commencing construction activities. The City will inspect for compliance of the SWPPP and NPDES permit throughout all construction activities. 1993 Impact 4.19-1: [Revised]
1993 Mitigation Measure 4.19-1(a): The City shall require implementation of the recommendations contained in the Wallace Kuhl and Associates 1991 Environmental Site Assessment for further parcel-specific hazardous materials investigation. Any further site investigation shall be conducted by qualified personnel, in accordance with all applicable regulations.