WEST SACRAMENTO CITY COUNCIL AND WEST SACRAMENTO REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR
AGENCY & WEST SACRAMENTO FINANCING AUTHORITY
City Council Regular Meeting
AUGUST 21, 2024 AGENDA
Martha Guerrero, Mayor
Dawnté Early, Mayor Pro Tem
Quirina Orozco, Council Member
Norma Alcala, Council Member
Verna Sulpizio Hull, Council Member
Aaron Laurel, City Manager
Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney
7:00 PM Regular Meeting Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance
Land Acknowledgment
The meeting will be held at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento GENERAL ADMINISTRATION FUNCTION – PART I
1. PRESENTATIONS BY THE PUBLIC ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COUNCIL
The Council is prohibited from discussing issues not on the agenda brought to them at this time.
According to State Law (the Brown Act), items must first be noticed on the agenda before any discussion or action.
PRESENTATIONS
NONE.
CONSENT AGENDA
2. Capital Projects
CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
FOR FINAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE HIGH SERVICE MANIFOLD REPAIR/REPLACEMENT/VAULT INSTALLATION PROJECT (CIP 21041) Objective: The objective of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient information to approve Amendment No. 2 of the professional services contract with Black & Veatch Corporation for the final design and engineering support services for the High Service Manifold Repair/Replacement/Vault Installation Project (CIP 21041) at the George Kristoff Water Treatment Plant.
Anyone wishing to address the Council, or any agenda item, may fill out the Request to Speak card and present it to the City Clerk prior to the completion of staff presentation. Items on the Consent Agenda will be considered in one motion and the Request to Speak card should be turned in prior to the first item on Consent.
1 Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council: (1) Approve the contract Amendment No. 2 to professional services contract with Black & Veatch Corporation in the amount of $111,092 for the High Service Manifold Repair/Replacement/Vault Installation Project (CIP 21041) at the George Kristoff Water Treatment Plant; (2) Authorize the City Manager or his designee to issue monthly progress payments to the consultant; (3) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments or change orders up to 15% ($16,663.80) of the Contract value; and (4) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute non-substantive changes or modifications to the Amendment No. 2, with approval from the City Attorney.
3. Capital Projects
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARD OF A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO GEORGE REED, INC. FOR THE STATE STREETS PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT (CIP 15042)
Objective: The objective of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient information to consider approval of the project plans and specifications, and award of a construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, George Reed, Inc., for the State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CIP 15042).
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council: (1) Find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the State Streets Infrastructure Rehabilitation Projects approved by the City Council on February 19, 2020 fully analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project and there no need for subsequent environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164; (2) Approve the Project Plans and Specifications for the State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project; (3) Award the construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, George Reed, Inc.; (4) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a construction contract with George Reed, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $6,719,552; (5) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute non-substantive changes or modifications, amendments, change orders, agreements, or purchases up to 10% of the construction contract amount ($672,000) with approval of the City Attorney; and (6) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to extend the term of the construction contract if necessary.
4. Capital Projects
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT 1 TO THE CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC (CPE23-231)
Objective: The objective of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient information to approve Amendment 1 to the contract for services with BrightView Landscape Services, Inc. (CPE23-231) for ongoing property maintenance of non-operating City properties.
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council: (1) Find that the Amendment 1 to the contract for services with BrightView Landscape Services, Inc. (CPE23-231) for ongoing property maintenance of non-operating City properties is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Categorical Exemptions under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 (“CEQA Guidelines”), Sections 15301, and find that the determination represents the independent 2 judgment of the City; (2) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue monthly progress payments to the consultant; (3) Approve Amendment 1 to the contract for services with BrightView Landscape Services, Inc. (CPE23-231) in the amount of $88,798.10 for ongoing property maintenance of non-operating City properties; (4) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment 1 as well as non-substantive changes or modifications to the contract for services, with approval from the City Attorney; (5) Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute additional amendments or change orders up to $36,201.90 of the contract; and (6) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to extend the term of these contracts, if necessary.
5. Community Development
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 24-88 AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE GRANT AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION FOR TWO SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING GRANT AWARDS
Objective: The purpose of this report is to present City Council with sufficient information to approve Resolution 24-88 authorizing City Manager to accept two Fiscal Year 2024-25 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant awards and authorize the City Manager to execute necessary grant agreements with California Department of Transportation.
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 24-88:
(1) Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to accept a grant award, in the amount of $309,855, from the California Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2024-25 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, for the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Master Plan Update; (2) Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to accept a grant award, in the amount of $354,120 from the California Department of Transportation Fiscal Year 2024-25 Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant, for the Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction and Mitigation Fee Program; (3) Authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to sign and enter into funding agreements with California Department of Transportation and take such other actions as necessary or appropriate to obtain the Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant funding; and (4) Approve Resolution 24-88 Adopting related appropriations.
6. Community Development
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 24-83 AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE YOLO-SOLANO AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE WEST SACRAMENTO - DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO ONDEMAND RIDESHARE PILOT Objective: The purpose of this report is to request City Council approval of Resolution 24-83 authorizing City Manager to execute a grant agreement with Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District and approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Federal Contract for Professional Services with Nomad Transit LLC with service parameters for the West Sacramento - Downtown Sacramento OnDemand Rideshare Program Pilot.
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council: (1) Authorize staff to initiate the West Sacramento - Downtown Sacramento On-Demand Rideshare Pilot; (2) Approve 3 the West Sacramento - Downtown Sacramento On-Demand Rideshare Program Pilot service parameters; (3) Approve and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Federal Contract for Professional Services with Nomad Transit LLC in the amount of $10,000; (4) Adopt Resolution 24-83 authorizing the City Manager, or designee, to execute all grant agreements and any amendments thereto with the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District for the Fiscal Year 2024 Clean Air Funds for the West Sacramento - Downtown Sacramento OnDemand Rideshare Pilot; and (5) Amend the On-Demand Rideshare Program budget to reflect the allocation of $13,700 in Clean Air Funds.
7. Community Development
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 24-90 ACCEPTING A DEDICATION OF PUBLIC EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF 600 SUTTER STREET
Objective: To accept the dedication of a public water easement, a public utility easement, and public right-of-way associated with the development of 600 Sutter Street.
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the Council adopt Resolution 24-90, accepting offers of dedication of a public water easement, public utility easement, and public rightof-way associated with the development of 600 Sutter Street.
8. Economic Development & Housing
CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH LYONS SECURITY SERVICES, INC., FOR SECURITY GUARD SERVICES AT THE CITY’S HOMELESS EMERGENCY HOUSING
PROGRAMS
Objective: The purpose of this report is to provide sufficient information for Council to consider approving a contract for services with Lyons Security Services, Inc. to provide security guard services for the City’s homeless emergency housing programs.
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:1) Approve a 12-month contract (Attachment 1) with Lyons Security Services, Inc., for security services in an amount not to exceed $671,892, for the City’s homeless emergency housing programs, and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute the contract for services; 2) Delegate authority to the City Manager, or his designee, to exercise two additional one-year terms, not to exceed $676,091.50 and $555,449.70, respectively, including an option for a dedicated vehicle, if needed; and 3) Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute amendments or change orders up to 15% ($100,784.00) of the contract; and 4) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to make nonsubstantive changes or modifications to the contract, with approval from the City Attorney.
9. Economic Development & Housing
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 24-85 APPROVING THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO ENHANCED INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 DEBT MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET POLICIES
4 Objective: The objective of this report is to obtain Council approval of the City of West Sacramento Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District No. 1 (“EIFD” or “District”) debt management and budget policies.
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the Council adopt Resolution 24-85 (Attachment 1) approving the Debt Management Policy and Budget Policy for the EIFD.
10. Public Works
CONSIDERATION OF AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH LYONS SECURITY SERVICE FOR SECURITY GUARD AND MOBILE PATROL SERVICES AT VARIOUS CITYOWNED LOCATIONS AND CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 24-87 ADOPTING RELATED
APPROPRIATIONS
Objective: The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient information to consider for approval a professional services contract with Lyons Security Service to provide security guard and mobile patrol services at various City-owned locations.
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council: (1) Adopt Resolution 24- 87 amending the FY 2024/25 budget to cover increased costs for security guard and mobile patrol services; (2) Award a contract for security guard and mobile patrol services at various City-owned locations to Lyons Security Service; (3) Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute nonsubstantive changes or modifications to the Contract for Services with approval from the City Attorney; (4) Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute amendments or change orders up to 10% of the contract amount; and (5) Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute amendments to extend the term of the contract.
11. City Manager's Office
CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE SUCCESSOR MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO AND THE WEST SACRAMENTO FIREFIGHTER’S ASSOCIATION AND ADOPTION OF THE SUCCESSOR
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO AND THE WEST SACRAMENTO STATIONARY ENGINEER'S, LOCAL 39
Objective: The purpose of this report is to seek City Council consideration of a thirteen (13) month Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of West Sacramento and the West Sacramento Firefighters’ Association (FFA) and a three (3) year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of West Sacramento and the West Sacramento Stationary Engineers’, Local 39 (Local 39).
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council: (1) Adopt the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of West Sacramento and West Sacramento Firefighters’ Association effective June 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025; and (2) Adopt the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of West Sacramento and the West Sacramento Stationary Engineers’, Local 39 effective July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2027.
12. City Manager's Office
5 CONSIDERATION OF FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 24-12 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.20 RELATED TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Objective: The purpose of this report is to request that the Council consider first reading of Ordinance 24-12, which would amend Chapter 2.20 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code to update the membership of the Parks, Recreation, and Intergenerational Services Commission (WSMC 2.20.020(B)) and updated the process by which board and commission members are removed for all City boards and commissions (WSMC 2.20.100(B)).
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council receive information regarding the proposed amendments and waive the first reading of Ordinance 24-12 amending Municipal Code Chapter 2.20 related to boards and commissions.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
NONE.
REGULAR AGENDA
13. Finance
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 24-86 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 (BRIDGE
DISTRICT AREA) TO FUND VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECTS AND AUTHORIZE THE FILING OF
A VALIDATION ACTION
Objective: The purpose of this report is to seek authorization for the issuance of debt by the City of West Sacramento Infrastructure Financing District No. 1 (Bridge District Area) to fund various capital projects and authorize the filing of a judicial validation action.
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the Public Financing Authority adopt Resolution 24-86 which authorizes the following actions: (1) Approve the issuance and sale of City of West Sacramento Infrastructure District No. 1 (“IFD”) bonds in an amount not to exceed $233,000,000 (“Bonds”); (2) Authorize the execution and delivery of a fiscal agent agreement prescribing the terms and conditions of the Bonds; (3) Appoint the firms of Lozano Smith LLP as Bond and Disclosure Counsel, and the firm of Del Rio Advisors, LLC, as Municipal Advisor, in connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds; (4) Authorize the initiation of a judicial validation action with respect to the IFD and the Bonds pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 860 et seq.; and (5) Approve other actions associated with the financing and the validation action.
14. Finance
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 24-92 ADOPTING MIDTERM AMENDMENTS TO THE
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE (O&M) AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGETS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25, SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 24-10 REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 2 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
PERTAINING TO CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION, ADOPTION OF AMENDED AUTHORIZED POSITION LIST (APL) AND SALARY SCHEDULE FOR FY 2024/25, AND APPROVAL OF
REVISED BENEFIT SUMMARIES FOR UNREPRESENTED GROUPS
6 Objective: The purpose of this report is to seek Council consideration of Resolution 24-92 adopting midterm amendments to the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budgets for fiscal year 2024/25 and related actions, and to seek City Council approval of proposed amendments to Title 2, Section 2.04.080 of the Municipal Code pertaining to City Council Compensation, in accordance with California Government Code Section 36516.
Recommendation: Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council: (1) Adopt Resolution 24- 92 approving midterm amendments to the Operations & Maintenance and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budgets for FY 2024/25; (2) Waive the Second Reading, read by title and number only, and adopt Ordinance 24-10 amending Title 2 of the Municipal Code regarding section
2.04.080 pertaining to City Council Compensation; (3) Approve the amended Authorized Position List for FY 2024/25; (4) Approve the updated and amended Salary Schedule (Classification Plan); and (5) Approve revised Benefit Summaries for the City Council, Police Recruit, Fire Recruit, Specialists and Professionals, Confidential, Management, Safety Management and Executive Management groups.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION FUNCTION – PART II
15. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS / ASSIGNMENTS
Bikeshare Policy Steering Committee --------------------------------------------Guerrero, Alternate - Early City/County 2x2 ----------------------------------------------------Guerrero/Orozco, Alternate – Sulpizio Hull City/School 2x2 ------------------------------------------------------Guerrero/Sulpizio Hull, Alternate - Alcala Executive Commission to Address Homelessness --------------------Sulpizio Hull, Alternate - Orozco EIFD Public Financing Authority-----------------------------------------------Guerrero, Alcala, Sulpizio Hull League of California Cities --------------------------------------------------- Alcala, Alternate – Sulpizio Hull Local Agency Formation Commission ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Alcala Port District Commission ---------------------------------------------------------Guerrero, Early, Sulpizio Hull Remote Access Network ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Guerrero River City Regional Stadium Financing Authority------------------------------------------Guerrero, Orozco Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) ------------------------Guerrero; Alternate - Early Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Board --------------Orozco; Alternate - Sulpizio Hull West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency JPA ----------------------------Alcala; Alternate - Orozco Yolo Animal Servies Planning Agency JPA----------------------------Guerrero; Alternate – Sulpizio Hull Yolo County Housing Authority-------------------------------------------------Early, Alternate - Sulpizio Hull Yolo Transportation District -----------------------------------------------------Early, Alternate - Sulpizio Hull Yolo Habitat Conservancy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sulpizio Hull Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District ----------------------------Alcala; Alternate – Sulpizio Hull Yolo Subbasin Sustainable Groundwater Agency-------------------------Sulpizio Hull; Alternate - Early
COUNCIL INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES
Delta Protection Commission -------------------------------------------------------Vacant; Alternate - Vacant New Hope Community Development Corporation---------------------------------Early; Alternate - Alcala Yolo County Consolidated Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board--------Sulpizio Hull
16. PART II
A. Council Calendar
B. City Manager Report
7 C. City Attorney Report
D. Staff Direction from City Council Members
E. Future Agenda Item Requests by Council
F. Adjourn
I, Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk, declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda for the August 21, 2024 regular and closed session meetings of the West Sacramento City Council, Redevelopment Successor Agency and Financing Authority was posted August 16, 2024 at the rear entrance at City Hall, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, CA and was available for public review. __________________________________________
Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
NOTE: If you challenge the nature of a proposed action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
The agenda and agenda reports are also available on the City’s website at www.cityofwestsacramento.org City Council meetings are broadcast live on Wave Cable Channel 20 and rerun the next day at 12:00 PM and the following Saturday at 6:00 PM.
All public materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are also made available for public inspection on the City’s website at:
www.cityofwestsacramento.org. Any document provided at the meeting by staff or by the public will be provided by the City Clerk upon request by phone at (916) 617-4500, or by email at: [email protected].
If you need assistance to participate in this meeting, including translation support, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 916-617-4500 or [email protected]. Notifying the City Clerk’s Office at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will assist staff in assuring reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting. Assisted listening devices are available at this meeting.
Si necesita ayuda para participar en esta reunión o servicios de traducción, comuníquese con la Oficina del Secretario Municipal al 916-617-4500 o [email protected]. Notificar a la Oficina del Secretario Municipal al menos 48 horas antes de la reunión ayudará al personal a garantizar que se puedan hacer arreglos razonables para proporcionar accesibilidad a la reunión.
Los dispositivos de escucha asistida están disponibles en esta reunión. 8 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2024 ITEM #2
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO BLACK & VEATCH
CORPORATION FOR FINAL DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES FOR
THE HIGH SERVICE MANIFOLD REPAIR/REPLACEMENT/VAULT INSTALLATION PROJECT (CIP 21041)
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
Inambao Lifanu, Project Manager II
Capital Projects Department
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Chris Kania, Water Treatment Superintendent
Public Works Operations and Maintenance
Department
ATTACHMENT [ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [ X ] Action
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient information to approve Amendment No. 2 of the professional services contract with Black & Veatch Corporation for the final design and engineering support services for the High Service Manifold Repair/Replacement/Vault Installation Project (CIP 21041) at the George Kristoff Water Treatment Plant.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1) Approve the contract Amendment No. 2 to professional services contract with Black & Veatch Corporation in the amount of $111,092 for the High Service Manifold Repair/Replacement/Vault Installation Project (CIP 21041) at the George Kristoff Water Treatment Plant; 2) Authorize the City Manager or his designee to issue monthly progress payments to the consultant; and 3) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments or change orders up to 15% ($16,663.80) of the Contract value; and
4) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute non-substantive changes or modifications to the Amendment No. 2, with approval from the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND
The City of West Sacramento's only water source is the Sacramento River. Water from the river is cleaned and treated at the George Kristoff Water Treatment Plant, which serves as the primary facility for collecting, cleaning, processing, and distributing potable water to over 52,000 residents. The facility is equipped with a range of infrastructure, including sensors, pumps, motors, switches, panels, filters, radios and networks, all critical to maintaining the City’s valuable water supply. Additionally, the facility houses seven (7) operations staff who provide 24-hour service to address alarms and ensure the facility remains secure from risks, hazards and uninvited situations.
The High Service Pump Station (HSPS) was designed and built in 1987 as a requirement to move high volumes of treated water from the clear wells into distribution systems serving the entire City of West Sacramento.
In 2003-2004, the HSPS was expanded to increase hydraulic capacity to 58 MGD (million gallons per day). The HSPS was originally constructed with 8 vertical turbine pumps in cans and a buried suction manifold. The HSPS was then expanded to include space for 8 additional pumps, mirroring the existing 8 pumps, and to allow for up to 16 pumps. This infrastructure is a critical component of the City’s water pressure and is the main source of treated surface water into the City’s distribution system.
Over the years, the City has experienced leaks and shearing of the stem extensions and operating nuts on some buried suction piping butterfly valves. Repairing the suction piping and valves requires excavation pits with depths of 15 feet or more.
In 2013, the City discovered that sodium hydroxide had leaked into the soil in the vicinity of the HSPS buried suction piping and valves. Due to the exposure of buried steel piping to a highly corrosive base and difficulty of accessing it for repairs, the City decided to implement a more functional solution to reduce costs and improve accessibility to the valves and underground infrastructure for routine repairs and maintenance. 9 High Service Manifold Repair/Replacement/Vault Installation Project August 21, 2024
In 2021, City staff and operators recommended exposing the buried pipes and installing a vault to provide operators with a clear view and access to the mechanical assembly of its HSPS housing 16 pumps and valves. This approach will help operators and contractors perform maintenance, replace parts, and diagnose the assembly. For functionality, the vault is expected to be open and meet standard access, security and safety requirements, including lighting, a stairway, a guard rail, and a sump and process drain to remove ground water.
On May 17, 2023, the City of West Sacramento entered into a professional services contract with Black & Veatch Corporation to address the design of a suction manifold vault that provides clear view and access to the mechanical assembly, as well as security and safety requirements, including lighting, a stairway, and a guard rail. Additionally, the project will include the design of a new insertion flow meter and vault for the buried 54-inch diameter HSPS discharge piping.
Due to the aged equipment, proximity to the river and history of underground leaks, the City solicited Blackburn Consulting Inc. to perform geotechnical and soils testing services on the project site. These services would determine the underground conditions and provide recommendations for the replacement or repair of the underground vault.
ANALYSIS
Upon completion and assessment of the geological and soils report, and the operational safety concerns of the Water Plant staff, it was determined that additional design and safety measures were put in place to ensure successful construction. On July 3, 2024, Black & Veatch submitted a request to amend the contract to increase the scope of the project in the amount of $111,092 to address geotechnical recommendations and risk concerns including:
Final design of a temporary pump station that will serve as a risk management tool during the construction and address any failures or unforeseen operational issues Engineering services including bid phase services, and supplemental services to ensure all aspects of the design meet the needs of the City and are communicated to the prospective bidders The design is currently at 90% completion and City Staff have determined that the design contract needs to be amended with additional scope and funds to prepare the project for successful completion. The additional funds being requested are in the amount of $111,092.
Environmental Considerations
As this is requesting approval of a design contract, this action is not a project that is subject to CEQA because it is not an activity that may cause either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065; CEQA Guidelines §§ 15060(c), 15378(a).) Commission Recommendation
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Integration
Not applicable.
Alternatives
The City Council may decide to:
1) Approve the recommended actions as stated above in this report; 2) Make changes to recommended actions; or
3) Defer the project to a later date or delete the project.
Alternative 1 is the best option to ensure the maximum value from the HSPS at the George Kristoff Water Treatment Plant, as completing the updates now will be more cost-effective for the City due to inflation and rising costs of materials and services.
Coordination and Review
This report was prepared by the Capital Projects Department in coordination with and review by the Public Works Operations and Maintenance Department and the Finance Department.
Budget/Cost Impact
The cost for the professional services identified herein is fully funded within the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for project High Service Manifold Repair/Replacement/Vault Installation Project (CIP 21041). 10 High Service Manifold Repair/Replacement/Vault Installation Project August 21, 2024
ATTACHMENTS
1) Contract Amendment 2 - Black & Veatch Corporation
2) Amendment Request
11 Attachment 1
CPC23-099 Black & Veatch Corporation, Amendment 2
High Service Manifold Repair/Replacement/Vault Installation Project AMENDMENT NO. 2
to the
CONTRACT FOR SERVICES
between the
CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
and
BLACK & VEATCH, CORPORATION
Dated May 17, 2023
This Amendment No. 2 to the Contract for Services between the City of West Sacramento and Black & Veatch Corporation, is made and entered into this 21st day of August 2024. Except as expressly amended herein, the May 17, 2023, Contract for Services is in full force and effect.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2023, City Council approved a professional services contract with Black & Veatch Corporation to provide the design of a suction manifold vault to access the main manifold, a new insertion flow meter and vault on the buried 54-inch diameter HSPS discharge piping, in the amount of $384,444; and
WHEREAS, Black & Veatch has presented a request to amend the contract budget to the City, dated July 3, 2024 (attached hereto as Exhibit A); and WHEREAS, additional funding of $111,092 is needed to fully fund the professional services contract including final design of temporary pump station, and engineering services that include bid phase support and supplemental services; WHEREAS, the City and the Black & Veatch Corporation desire to amend the said contract; and
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by parties hereto to amend said agreement as follows:
I. SCOPE OF SERVICES:
The scope of services as set forth in the Contract for Services dated May 17, 2023, shall be revised to reflect the additional tasks as outlined in Exhibit A including:
• Final design of temporary pump station that will serve as a risk management tool during the construction and address any failures or unforeseen operational issues. • Engineering services including bid phase services, and supplemental services to ensure all aspects of the design meet the needs of the City and are communicated to the prospective bidders.
II. COMPENSATION:
The compensation as set forth in the Contract for Services dated May 17, 2023, shall be revised to include the following:
Compensation shall be increased by $111,092 and total compensation shall not exceed $546,061 without City’s written approval.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as the date herein set forth.
CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
By:
Amanda Berlin, Assistant City Manager
12 Attachment 1
CPC23-099 Black & Veatch Corporation, Amendment 2
High Service Manifold Repair/Replacement/Vault Installation Project
BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
By:
Dave Carlson, Vice President
APPROVED AS TO FORM
By:
Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney
ATTEST:
By: ________________________________________________________ Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk 13 1 of 2
BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
10995 Gold Center Drive, Suite 100, Rancho Cordova, CA, 95670 July 3, 2024 [DRAFT COPY]
Inambao Lifanu, PMP
City of West Sacramento
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
RE: City of West Sacramento WTP HS Manifold Repair – Amendment 1 Dear Mr. Inambao:
The Black & Veatch (BV) Corporation is requesting funds to complete additional work requested by the City as summarized below.
At the 90% design review discussions, the City preferred the following approach:
1. Proceed with detailed design of the temporary pumps. Flow capacity shall meet maximum demand of 15 mgd with turn down to 7 mgd.
2. Proceed with underground services survey to confirm conduits below grade at the proposed vault location.
3. Temporary pump station shall be in operation (24 hrs daily and 7 days a week) throughout the vault construction period.
In the executed contract, the base scope does not include the temporary pump station design, support services to City’s front end and Bid phase support services. The following additional scope has been requested by the City.
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 4 – Final Design with Temporary Pump Station
The following additional scope has been requested by the City and will be included in the final design:
Provide 100% design submittals that will include the following:
1. Temporary pumps shall be fully automatic in operation with variable speed drives to provide flow rate (pump capacity) meeting varying demands.
2. Power to the temporary pumps shall be fed from the existing electrical switch board.
3. Temporary pumps shall send control signals to SCADA for operators monitoring.
4. Temporary pumps shall be designed and specified complete with pump skid, duty/standby configuration. Pump suction and discharge pipe work and associated valves and appurtenances will be specified and provided by the contractor.
14 2 of 2
Deliverables
· Layout drawings for temporary pumps.
· Pipeline specifications, drawings for temporary pumps. · Electrical and Instrumentation control specification and drawings. · Update the OPCC (cost estimate) report.
Task 5 – Bid Phase Services
The following services will be provided during bid phase:
• Attend one (1) pre-bid meeting at the City’s WTP.
• Interpret construction documents and issue addenda as required to clarify the intent of bid documents (1 addendum included).
• Review and evaluate contractor bids and recommend to the City. A bid evaluation summary memorandum will be provided to the City • Conformed to Bid Drawings and Specifications. B&V will prepare conformed to bid drawings and specifications to incorporate all addenda issued during the bid phase. An electronic PDF copy of half size and full- size drawings and pdf specifications will be provided to the City on a CD.
Task 6 – Supplemental Services
This phase provides a lump sum contingency budget that will be controlled by the City.
Possible tasks that may be required includes the B&V support to City’s front end documents. The City will determine the need for this supplemental task during the project, and the scope and budget for requested tasks will be negotiated at that time.
Task 7 – Construction Phase Services
The construction phase services will be negotiated at the end of Task 5.
Black & Veatch is requesting an amendment of $111,092. The table below summarizes the amendment requested per Task 4, Task 5 and Task 6.
Task Estimated Budget
Task 4 – Temporary Pump Station Design $88,650
Task 5 – Bid Phase Services $12,512
Task 6 – Supplemental Services $9,930
TOTAL $111,092
Total Contract Authorized Budget: $382,444
Approved Amendment 1: $ 52,525
Proposed Amendment 2: $111,092
Total Contract Amended Authorized Budget: $546,061
15 City of West Sacramento WTP High Service Pump Station Vault Design Alternative Scope Addition Change Order Request Vijay Randy Marcus Steve Rajendra Lu Guna Electrical Raghu Dewey Lindsay Binu Karu Fiorucci Simpson Hull Tekade Victor Subramnian Jody Kadava Smith Williams Ramchandran Project
Manager
Clerk QA/QC Const
Review
Cost Est Design Eng
Mgmt
Civil Sr. Struct Electr Sr Mech I&C Project
Accounting
CAD SUBTOTAL,
Billings $
(Salary Rate, $$,Hr.) $256.00 $102.00 $359.00 $326.00 $240.00 $256.00 $180.00 $235.00 $256.00 $250.00 $276.00 $160.00 $144.00 TASK - 4
4 2 8 24 12 18 24
4 12 32
4 18 28 8 6 12
4 4 12 18 8 26 12
4 8 4 4 4 4
12 8 12 8
TOTAL FOR TASK - 4 12 8 20 10 12 12 36 46 68 76 36 8 24 88,650$ TASK - 5
-Support City during bid period 4 2 6 12 12 6 4 6 4
TOTAL FOR TASK - 5 4 2 6 12 12 6 4 6 4 12,512$
TASK - 6
-Support City front end document 24 16 6
TOTAL FOR TASK - 6 24 16 6 9,930$
-Project Management & coordination
Bid Phase Services
Supplemental Services
Temporary Pumps Design
-Site layout and drawing details
-Temporary Pump selection, performance review, & specification details -Electrical and Controls design and specification details -Pump instrumentation devices, controls, VFD, & SCADA/PLC integration -Constructability review
16 1 of 2
BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
10995 Gold Center Drive, Suite 100, Rancho Cordova, CA, 95670 July 3, 2024 [DRAFT COPY]
Inambao Lifanu, PMP
City of West Sacramento
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
RE: City of West Sacramento WTP HS Manifold Repair – Amendment 1 Dear Mr. Inambao:
The Black & Veatch (BV) Corporation is requesting funds to complete additional work requested by the City as summarized below.
At the 90% design review discussions, the City preferred the following approach:
1. Proceed with detailed design of the temporary pumps. Flow capacity shall meet maximum demand of 15 mgd with turn down to 7 mgd.
2. Proceed with underground services survey to confirm conduits below grade at the proposed vault location.
3. Temporary pump station shall be in operation (24 hrs daily and 7 days a week) throughout the vault construction period.
In the executed contract, the base scope does not include the temporary pump station design, support services to City’s front end and Bid phase support services. The following additional scope has been requested by the City.
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 4 – Final Design with Temporary Pump Station
The following additional scope has been requested by the City and will be included in the final design:
Provide 100% design submittals that will include the following:
1. Temporary pumps shall be fully automatic in operation with variable speed drives to provide flow rate (pump capacity) meeting varying demands.
2. Power to the temporary pumps shall be fed from the existing electrical switch board.
3. Temporary pumps shall send control signals to SCADA for operators monitoring.
4. Temporary pumps shall be designed and specified complete with pump skid, duty/standby configuration. Pump suction and discharge pipe work and associated valves and appurtenances will be specified and provided by the contractor.
Att 2
17 2 of 2
Deliverables
· Layout drawings for temporary pumps.
· Pipeline specifications, drawings for temporary pumps. · Electrical and Instrumentation control specification and drawings. · Update the OPCC (cost estimate) report.
Task 5 – Bid Phase Services
The following services will be provided during bid phase:
• Attend one (1) pre-bid meeting at the City’s WTP.
• Interpret construction documents and issue addenda as required to clarify the intent of bid documents (1 addendum included).
• Review and evaluate contractor bids and recommend to the City. A bid evaluation summary memorandum will be provided to the City • Conformed to Bid Drawings and Specifications. B&V will prepare conformed to bid drawings and specifications to incorporate all addenda issued during the bid phase. An electronic PDF copy of half size and full- size drawings and pdf specifications will be provided to the City on a CD.
Task 6 – Supplemental Services
This phase provides a lump sum contingency budget that will be controlled by the City.
Possible tasks that may be required includes the B&V support to City’s front end documents. The City will determine the need for this supplemental task during the project, and the scope and budget for requested tasks will be negotiated at that time.
Task 7 – Construction Phase Services
The construction phase services will be negotiated at the end of Task 5.
Black & Veatch is requesting an amendment of $111,092. The table below summarizes the amendment requested per Task 4, Task 5 and Task 6.
Task Estimated Budget
Task 4 – Temporary Pump Station Design $88,650
Task 5 – Bid Phase Services $12,512
Task 6 – Supplemental Services $9,930
TOTAL $111,092
Total Contract Authorized Budget: $382,444
Approved Amendment 1: $ 52,525
Proposed Amendment 2: $111,092
Total Contract Amended Authorized Budget: $546,061
Att 2
18 City of West Sacramento WTP High Service Pump Station Vault Design Alternative Scope Addition Change Order Request Vijay Randy Marcus Steve Rajendra Lu Guna Electrical Raghu Dewey Lindsay Binu Karu Fiorucci Simpson Hull Tekade Victor Subramnian Jody Kadava Smith Williams Ramchandran Project
Manager
Clerk QA/QC Const
Review
Cost Est Design Eng
Mgmt
Civil Sr. Struct Electr Sr Mech I&C Project
Accounting
CAD SUBTOTAL,
Billings $
(Salary Rate, $$,Hr.) $256.00 $102.00 $359.00 $326.00 $240.00 $256.00 $180.00 $235.00 $256.00 $250.00 $276.00 $160.00 $144.00 TASK - 4
4 2 24 12 18 24 8
4 12 32
4 18 28 8 6 12
4 4 12 18 8 26 12
4 8 4 4 4 4
12 8 12 8
TOTAL FOR TASK - 4 12 8 20 10 12 12 36 46 68 76 36 8 24 88,650$ TASK - 5
-Support City during bid period 4 2 12 12 6 6 4 6 4
TOTAL FOR TASK - 5 4 2 12 12 6 6 4 6 4 12,512$
TASK - 6
-Support City front end document 24 16 6
TOTAL FOR TASK - 6 24 16 6 $ 9,930
-Project Management & coordination
Bid Phase Services
Supplemental Services
Temporary Pumps Design
-Site layout and drawing details
-Temporary Pump selection, performance review, & specification details -Electrical and Controls design and specification details -Pump instrumentation devices, controls, VFD, & SCADA/PLC integration -Constructability review
Att 2
19 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 21, 2024 ITEM # 3
SUBJECT:
CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO GEORGE REED, INC. FOR THE STATE STREETS PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT (CIP 15042) INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Bridget K. McGinnis, Assistant Engineer
Capital Projects Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to provide the City Council with sufficient information to consider approval of the project plans and specifications, and award of a construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, George Reed, Inc., for the State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CIP 15042).
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1) Find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the State Streets Infrastructure Rehabilitation Projects approved by the City Council on February 19, 2020 fully analyzes the environmental impacts of the proposed project and there no need for subsequent environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164; 2) Approve the Project Plans and Specifications for the State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project; 3) Award the construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, George Reed, Inc.; 4) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a construction contract with George Reed, Inc., for an amount not to exceed $6,719,552;
5) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute non-substantive changes or modifications, amendments, change orders, agreements, or purchases up to 10% of the construction contract amount ($672,000) with approval of the City Attorney; and
6) Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to extend the term of the construction contract if necessary.
BACKGROUND
The State Streets neighborhood is one of the City's older communities, having been platted in the early 1950s.
The neighborhood is located just north of the Deep-Water Channel and is bounded by Jefferson Boulevard to the east, Park Boulevard to the west, Stone Boulevard to the south, and 15th Street to the north. It is characterized primarily by single-family residential homes with mature trees, street parking, and overhead powerlines along most of the streets.
The State Streets Infrastructure Projects consist of rehabilitation of the sewer lines, water lines, and pavement in the State Streets neighborhood. The initial phase, which consisted of rehabilitation of public underground utilities, was completed in 2021. Rehabilitation of the pavement is the final phase of work within the neighborhood and can now proceed as the underlying water and sewer lines have been brought up to good condition. The majority of roads in the State Streets neighborhood are in poor condition, and the City has received numerous complaints about the pavement condition in this neighborhood.
The design contract for pavement rehabilitation with Bennett Engineering was approved by City Council on July 19, 2023. The State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project will address the pavement condition by performing either roadway reconstruction with hot mix asphalt or a preventative maintenance slurry seal application on selected roads to extend their remaining life until a more extensive rehabilitation can occur. Other improvements include the construction of accessible curb ramps and replacement to some of the curb and gutter within the neighborhood.
20 Construction Contract with George Reed, Inc.
August 21, 2024
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the Public Contract Code, the State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project (24-026-ITB) was publicly advertised June 20, 2024, in the News Ledger, Builders Exchange, and OpenGov.com. Seven (7) electronic bids were received and opened on July 22, 2024. The results are as follows:
Rank Contractor Bid Amount
1 George Reed, Inc. $6,719,552.00
2 Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. $6,764,269.00 3 DeSilva Gates Construction, LLC $6,862,862.00
4 McGuire and Hester $6,898,888.00
5 B & M Builders, Inc. $7,264,195.00
6 Martin Brothers Construction $7,323,327.00
7 A. Teichert & Son, Inc. dba Teichert Construction $8,224,945.60 The Engineer’s Estimate was $6,521,630, which is 3% less than the lowest bid. Based on the review and evaluation of all bids received along with the required documentation, staff has determined George Reed, Inc., to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Staff is therefore recommending that City Council award the construction contract to George Reed, Inc., in the amount of $6,719,552.
Upon award of the contract by City Council, staff will coordinate with the contractor to execute the contract and issue a Notice to Proceed with construction. Construction is anticipated to begin in October with concrete work such as accessible curb ramp installation along with curb and gutter replacement. Pavement rehabilitation will occur after completion of the concrete work and is forecasted to begin in Spring 2025.
Environmental Considerations
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared by Horizon Water and Environment LLC for the State Streets Infrastructure Rehabilitation Projects in accordance with CEQA guidelines. The report was circulated for review through the State Clearinghouse.
A Notice of Availability, which meets the requirements of a Notice of Intent, was distributed to responsible agencies and published in the West Sacramento News-Ledger on November 6, 2019, and a Notice of Completion of the Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was filed with the State Clearinghouse on November 6, 2019. Copies of the document were also circulated to federal and state agencies, City departments, county departments, local agencies, and private agencies. The agency review period commenced on November 6, 2019, and ended December 5, 2019. The public commenting period began November 6, 2019, and ended December 5, 2019.
During the public review period, a copy of the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for review at City Hall. During this review period, comments were received from 11 individuals or groups. The City of West Sacramento has examined the potential environmental impacts to the study area that associated with improvements within the entire project boundary. Pursuant to CEQA, all required environmental research and analyses have been performed. All environmental surveys, resource agency coordination, and contracting of interested parties have been conducted.
The Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration summarizes the findings of recent field and literature research, as well as record searches. The analysis provided in the environmental document identified potential impacts on Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Mandatory Findings of Significance. All impacts will be mitigated to “Less then Significant.” The Mitigated Negative Declaration fully analyzed the environmental impacts of the proposed project and no need for subsequent environmental review is required pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by the City Council on February 19, 2020 and the Notice of Determination was filed. The state clearinghouse number is #20191190181.
Commission Recommendation
Not applicable.
Strategic Plan Integration
Not applicable.
1 https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2019119018/3 21
Construction Contract with George Reed, Inc.
August 21, 2024
Alternatives
Following are the City Council’s primary action alternatives:
1) Approve the recommended actions as stated above.
2) Modify or defer the recommended actions.
3) Not approve the recommended action or delete the project.
Alternative 1 is recommended to avoid stalling the rehabilitation of the pavement, which already beyond its life span.
Coordination and Review
This report was prepared by the Capital Projects Department in coordination with the Public Works Operations and Maintenance Department and the Finance Department.
Budget/Cost Impact
This project is included in the City’s current Capital Improvement Program (CIP) as State Streets Design Project CIP 15042. The mid-year budget includes additional funding to sufficiently fund the project. No additional funds are requested with this action.
ATTACHMENTS
1) George Reed, Inc. Company Construction Contract
2) State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project Map
22 George Reed, Inc.
CPE24-209 State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation 142
Working Days
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
THIS CONTRACT made on August 21, 2024, by and between the CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO (“City”), and George Reed, Inc., hereinafter “Contractor”. The City and Contractor may be collectively referred to as the “parties”.
The parties have mutually covenanted and agreed as follows:
1. THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS:
The complete Contract consists of the following documents (“Contract Documents”):
Construction Contract (See Part 2)
Payment Bond to accompany Contract (See Part 2)
Performance Bond to accompany Contract (See Part 2)
Addendums 1-8
Contractor’s Certification Regarding Workers’ Compensation (See Part 2) General Conditions (See Part 3)
Supplemental Conditions (Special Provisions) (See Part 4) Drawings
Technical Specifications (See Part 4)
Change Orders
City of West Sacramento Standard Specifications 2002, with Amendments #1 & #2 State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Specifications 2015 Contractor’s Emergency Invoice (Accepted Bid)
2. THE WORK:
The Contractor agrees to furnish all tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor, transportation, and material necessary to perform and complete in a good and workmanlike manner, the State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation “Project” as called for, and in the manner designated in, and in strict conformity with, the Contract Documents. It is understood and agreed that the tools, equipment, apparatus, facilities, labor, transportation, and material shall be furnished and the work performed and completed as required in the Drawings and Specifications under the sole direction and control of the Contractor, and subject to inspection and approval of the City, or its representatives. The City hereby designates as its representative for the purpose of this Contract the following named person: Bridget McGinnis, Assistant Engineer, [email protected]
3. CONTRACT PRICE:
The City agrees to pay and the Contractor agrees to accept, in full payment for the work above agreed to be done, the sum of $6,719,552.00 for the Project subject to additions and deductions as provided in the Contract Documents.
4. COMPLETION DATE:
There will be two Notice to Proceeds issued for this contract. All work for concrete work on the curb and gutter, curb ramps, and other concrete areas as shown on the plans. The concrete work will be completed within SEVENTY-SEVEN (77) WORKING DAYS from the date designated in the first Notice to Proceed, and to accept in full payment therefore the price indicated on the Bid Schedule. All work for HMA, Slurry Seal work along with the remainder of work as shown on the plans. This work will be completed within SIXTY-FIVE (65) WORKING DAYS within SIXTY (60) working days from the second date designated in the Notice to Proceed, and to accept in full payment therefore the price indicated on the Bid Schedule. 23 George Reed, Inc.
CPE24-209 State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation
142 Working Days
Updated 8/3/23
5. NOTICE AND SERVICE THEREOF:
Any notice from one party to the other under the Contract shall be in writing and shall be dated and signed by the party giving such notice or by a duly authorized representative of such party. Any such notice shall not be effective for any purpose whatsoever unless served in the following manner, namely:
(a) If the notice is given to the City, by personal delivery thereof to the Director of Capital Projects, or by depositing the same in the United States mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and certified; addressed to the City at:
City of West Sacramento
Ariana Adame, Director of Capital Projects
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 1st Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(b) If the notice is given to the Contractor, by personal delivery thereof to said Contractor or to its duly authorized representative at the site of the project, or by depositing the same in the United States mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and certified; addressed to the Contractor at:
Business George Reed, Inc.
Attention Ed Berlier, Vice President/General Manager
Street Address 140 Empire Avenue
City, State, Zip Code Modesto, CA 95354
(c) If the notice is given to the surety or any other person, by personal delivery to such surety or other person, or by depositing the same in the United States mail, enclosed in a sealed envelope, addressed to such surety or other person, as the case may be, at the address of such surety or person last communicated by it to the party giving the notice, postage prepaid and certified.
6. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES:
Liquidated damages as provided for in the General Conditions of the Contract shall be in the sum of Six Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars ($6,700.00) for each and every day as defined therein for each different scope of work as defined by the Base Bid and each change order except as otherwise specified in the Supplemental Conditions.
7. PREVAILING WAGE:
Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages as determined by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations in accordance with Labor Code section 1773.2 are on file at the City, and copies are available for inspection at that office to any interested party on request.
Bidders shall be responsible for verifying with the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations that all such copies of the prevailing rate provided by the City are current and accurate. The requirement to pay the wage rate so specified is further detailed in the General Conditions.
24 George Reed, Inc.
CPE24-209 State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation
142 Working Days
Updated 8/3/23
8. CONTRACTOR REGISTRATION
By the execution of this Contract, Contractor hereby certifies that it is registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations as required pursuant to Labor Code section 1725.5 (Contractor registration).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, four (4) identical counterparts of this Contract, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original, have been duly executed by the above-named parties, on the date noted on the first page of this Contract.
Date Ed Berlier, Vice President/General
Manager
[email protected]
Date Aaron Laurel, City Manager
Approved as to form:
Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney
Attest:
Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
25 Updated 8/3/23
CONTRACTOR’S CERTIFICATE REGARDING WORKER’S COMPENSATION TO: Ariana Adame, Director of Capital Projects
City of West Sacramento
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 1st Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code of the State of California which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract. (Contractor)
By
(Business Address)
(Place of Residence)
26 Line
Item Description Quantity Unit of Measure Unit Cost Total 1 MOBILIZATION, DEMOBILIZATION, AND FINAL CLEANUP 1 LS $578,500.00 $578,500.00 2 SWPPP 1 LS $35,000.00 $35,000.00
3 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN 1 LS $300,000.00 $300,000.00
4 REMOVE PCC CURB AND GUTTER 13950 LF $15.00 $209,250.00 5 REMOVE CONCRETE 16510 SQFT $8.00 $132,080.00
6 REMOVE SIGN 2 EA $50.00 $100.00
7 REMOVE AND REPLACE STORM DRAIN PIPE 35 LF $450.00 $15,750.00 8 RESET DRAINAGE INLET 6 EA $2,000.00 $12,000.00
9 ADJUST SDMH FRAME AND COVER TO GRADE 8 EA $2,800.00 $22,400.00 10 ADJUST SSMH FRAME AND COVER TO GRADE 15 EA $2,800.00 $42,000.00 11 ADJUST WATER VALVE BOX TO GRADE 66 EA $1,600.00 $105,600.00 12 ADJUST ARV BOX TO GRADE 5 EA $1,500.00 $7,500.00
13 ADJUST WATER METER PULL BOX TO GRADE 10 EA $850.00 $8,500.00 14 ADJUST SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT BOX TO GRADE 10 EA $1,750.00 $17,500.00 15 SLURRY SEAL 50530 SY $3.00 $151,590.00
16 ROADWAY EXCAVATION AND GRADING 10300 CY $95.00 $978,500.00 17 6" HOT MIX ASPHALT - 1/2" & 3/4" 17100 TON $110.00 $1,881,000.00 18 6" DIGOUTS 19300 SF $7.00 $135,100.00
19 DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE 9 EA $550.00 $4,950.00
20 PCC SIDEWALK CURB RAMP, PARALLEL 21 EA $2,000.00 $42,000.00 21 PCC SIDEWALK CURB RAMP, PERPENDICULAR 6 EA $3,500.00 $21,000.00 22 PCC SIDEWALK CURB RAMP, CASE F 4 EA $3,200.00 $12,800.00 23 PCC DRIVEWAY CONFORM 7800 SF $18.00 $140,400.00
24 VALLEY GUTTER 2530 SF $80.00 $202,400.00
25 PCC VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER 13400 LF $73.00 $978,200.00 26 PCC ROLLED CURB AND GUTTER, Type C 550 LF $75.00 $41,250.00 27 PLACE ROADSIDE SIGN 2 EA $450.00 $900.00
28 THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE 1620 LF $3.00 $4,860.00 29 PAVEMENT MARKINGS 4600 SF $12.00 $55,200.00
30 INSTALL SPEED HUMP 11 EA $9,000.00 $99,000.00
31 SIGNAL INTECONNECT SYSTEMS 1 LS $484,222.00 $484,222.00 TOTAL $6,719,552.00
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 City of West Sacramento
Finance
Roberta Raper, Director of Finance
1110 W Capitol Ave, West Sacramento, CA 95691
ADDENDA REPORT
Invitation to Bid - State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project
ADDENDA REPORT
ITB No. 24-026-ITB
State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project
RESPONSE DEADLINE: July 22, 2024 at 3:00 pm
Tuesday, July 30, 2024
Addenda Issued:
Addendum #1
Jun 20, 2024 5:48 PM
Please use the See What Changed link to view all the changes made by this addendum.
Addendum #2
Jul 2, 2024 9:26 AM
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Attachments:
· State Streets MND Response
· State Streets Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum #3
Jul 2, 2024 9:27 AM
Arborist Report
Attachments:
· State Streets Arborist Report
Addendum #4
Jul 2, 2024 11:36 AM
Bat Survey Memo
Attachments:
· Bat Survey Memo State Streets
Addendum #5
Jul 2, 2024 1:24 PM
Please use the See What Changed link to view all the changes made by this addendum.
Addendum #6
Jul 3, 2024 4:53 PM
Road Topo Files:
• 23321-DR-TOPO (DWG)
42 ADDENDA REPORT
ITB No. 24-026-ITB
State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project
• 23321-DR-TOPO (TXT)
• 23321-XR-TOPO (DWG)
• BEN-EN - PLOTTER-2012 (CTB)
• Concrete.Cast-In-Place.Exposed Aggregate.Coarse (JPG) • Concrete.Cast-In-Place.Flat.Grey.1 (JPG)
• Sitework.Planting.Grass.Short (JPG)
• Sitework.Planting.Grass.Thick (JPG)
• Sitework.Planting.Gravel.Crushed (JPG)
• Sitework.Planting.Gravel.Mixed (JPG)
• Sitework.Planting.Sand (JPG)
• Sitework.Planting.Sand (JPG)
Attachments:
· Addendum No 6_Final
· 23321-DR-TOPO
· 23321-DR-TOPO
· 23321-XR-TOPO
· BEN-EN - PLOTTER-2012
· Concrete.Cast-In-Place.Exposed Aggregate.Coarse
· Sitework.Planting.Grass.Short
· Sitework.Planting.Grass.Thick
· Concrete.Cast-In-Place.Flat.Grey.1
· Sitework.Planting.Gravel.Crushed
· Sitework.Planting.Gravel.Mixed
· Sitework.Planting.Sand
· Sitework.Planting.Soil
Addendum #7
Jul 3, 2024 5:01 PM
THIS ADDENDUM shall be considered as part of the contract documents and shall be signed and attached to the volume of proposal documents, which must be submitted with the bid.
The cost of meeting these requirements shall be included in the bid prices for the respective items of work and no additional compensation will be allowed therefore.
The following revisions are to be made to the Contract Documents:
A. Published Pre-Bid Minutes and Agenda (PDF)
B. Published Pre-Bid Sign in (PDF)
C. Published Bid Bond Form (PDF)
D. Published Record Drawings State Streets Sewer Rehabilitation Project (PDF) 43 ADDENDA REPORT
ITB No. 24-026-ITB
State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project
E. Published Record Drawings State Streets Water Main Improvement Project (PDF)
F. Revised Working Days to 142. The working days and milestones are shown below:
• Concrete Work, 77 working days, NTP expected 10/01/2024; • HMA and Slurry Seal work, 65 working days, NTP expected 4/01/2025; • 142 Total Working Days.
Attachments:
· Addendum No 7_Final
· Pre Bid Meeting Agenda and Minutes
· Bid Bond Form
· Record Drawings State Streets Sewer Rehabilitation Project · Pre-Bid Sign in 24.6.25
· Record Drawings State Streets Water Main Improvement Project Addendum #8
Jul 16, 2024 3:45 PM
THIS ADDENDUM shall be considered as part of the contract documents and shall be signed and attached to the volume of proposal documents, which must be submitted with the bid.
The cost of meeting these requirements shall be included in the bid prices for the respective items of work and no additional compensation will be allowed therefore.
The following revisions are to be made to the Contract Documents:
• HMA Cross Section Example (JPEG)
• Section Plots (PDF)
o Alameda
o 16th
o Vermont
o Virginia
o Alabama
o Delaware
o Circle
o 17th
o Carolina
o Maryland
• PART 5 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Update 2024.07.16 (PDF) PART 5 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS; Section 8; 8.01 HOT MIX ASPHALT; SPREADING AND COMPACTION EQUIPMENT was changed to say
“After compaction, the asphalt concrete shall have a density of not less than 95 percent of the maximum theoretical unit weight relative compaction of the Laboratory Tested Maximum Density (LTMD), as determined in the field by California Test Method 375 or in a method as approved by the City Engineer.”
44 ADDENDA REPORT
ITB No. 24-026-ITB
State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project
Attachments:
· 16th
· Addendum No 8
· Vermont
· Alameda
· Virginia
· Alabama
· Delaware
· Circle
· Carolina
· Maryland
· PART 5 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Update 2024.07.16
· 17th
Addenda Acknowledgements:
Addendum #1
Proposal Confirmed Confirmed At Confirmed By
McGuire and Hester X Jul 3, 2024 8:18 AM Alameda Estimating Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. X Jul 16, 2024 11:05 AM Bayley Follett B & M Builders Inc X Jun 28, 2024 12:26 PM Patrick Mullen DeSilva Gates Construction LLC X Jul 22, 2024 9:45 AM Michael Gates MARTIN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION X Jul 15, 2024 4:40 PM Felipe Martin A. Teichert & Son, Inc. dba Teichert
Construction
X Jul 11, 2024 12:16 PM William Martin
GEORGE REED, INC. X Jun 25, 2024 10:30 AM Adam Hanson
Addendum #2
Proposal Confirmed Confirmed At Confirmed By
McGuire and Hester X Jul 3, 2024 8:18 AM Alameda Estimating Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. X Jul 16, 2024 11:05 AM Bayley Follett B & M Builders Inc X Jul 17, 2024 7:44 AM Patrick Mullen DeSilva Gates Construction LLC X Jul 22, 2024 9:45 AM Michael Gates MARTIN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION X Jul 15, 2024 4:40 PM Felipe Martin A. Teichert & Son, Inc. dba Teichert
Construction
X Jul 11, 2024 12:16 PM William Martin
GEORGE REED, INC. X Jul 2, 2024 9:27 AM Adam Hanson
45 ADDENDA REPORT
ITB No. 24-026-ITB
State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project
Addendum #3
Proposal Confirmed Confirmed At Confirmed By
McGuire and Hester X Jul 3, 2024 8:18 AM Alameda Estimating Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. X Jul 16, 2024 11:05 AM Bayley Follett B & M Builders Inc X Jul 17, 2024 7:44 AM Patrick Mullen DeSilva Gates Construction LLC X Jul 22, 2024 9:45 AM Michael Gates MARTIN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION X Jul 15, 2024 4:41 PM Felipe Martin A. Teichert & Son, Inc. dba Teichert
Construction
X Jul 11, 2024 12:16 PM William Martin
GEORGE REED, INC. X Jul 2, 2024 9:30 AM Adam Hanson
Addendum #4
Proposal Confirmed Confirmed At Confirmed By
McGuire and Hester X Jul 3, 2024 8:18 AM Alameda Estimating Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. X Jul 16, 2024 11:05 AM Bayley Follett B & M Builders Inc X Jul 17, 2024 7:44 AM Patrick Mullen DeSilva Gates Construction LLC X Jul 22, 2024 9:45 AM Michael Gates MARTIN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION X Jul 15, 2024 4:41 PM Felipe Martin A. Teichert & Son, Inc. dba Teichert
Construction
X Jul 11, 2024 12:16 PM William Martin
GEORGE REED, INC. X Jul 2, 2024 11:37 AM Adam Hanson
Addendum #5
Proposal Confirmed Confirmed At Confirmed By
McGuire and Hester X Jul 3, 2024 8:18 AM Alameda Estimating Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. X Jul 16, 2024 11:05 AM Bayley Follett B & M Builders Inc X Jul 17, 2024 7:44 AM Patrick Mullen DeSilva Gates Construction LLC X Jul 22, 2024 9:45 AM Michael Gates MARTIN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION X Jul 15, 2024 4:41 PM Felipe Martin A. Teichert & Son, Inc. dba Teichert
Construction
X Jul 11, 2024 12:16 PM William Martin
GEORGE REED, INC. X Jul 2, 2024 1:28 PM Adam Hanson
Addendum #6
Proposal Confirmed Confirmed At Confirmed By
46 ADDENDA REPORT
ITB No. 24-026-ITB
State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project
McGuire and Hester X Jul 11, 2024 10:45 AM Alameda Estimating Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. X Jul 16, 2024 11:05 AM Bayley Follett B & M Builders Inc X Jul 17, 2024 7:44 AM Patrick Mullen DeSilva Gates Construction LLC X Jul 22, 2024 9:45 AM Michael Gates MARTIN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION X Jul 15, 2024 4:41 PM Felipe Martin A. Teichert & Son, Inc. dba Teichert
Construction
X Jul 11, 2024 12:16 PM William Martin
GEORGE REED, INC. X Jul 5, 2024 8:44 AM Adam Hanson
Addendum #7
Proposal Confirmed Confirmed At Confirmed By
McGuire and Hester X Jul 11, 2024 10:45 AM Alameda Estimating Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. X Jul 16, 2024 11:05 AM Bayley Follett B & M Builders Inc X Jul 17, 2024 7:44 AM Patrick Mullen DeSilva Gates Construction LLC X Jul 22, 2024 9:45 AM Michael Gates MARTIN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION X Jul 15, 2024 4:41 PM Felipe Martin A. Teichert & Son, Inc. dba Teichert
Construction
X Jul 11, 2024 12:16 PM William Martin
GEORGE REED, INC. X Jul 5, 2024 8:44 AM Adam Hanson
Addendum #8
Proposal Confirmed Confirmed At Confirmed By
McGuire and Hester X Jul 17, 2024 2:40 PM Alameda Estimating Central Valley Engineering & Asphalt, Inc. X Jul 22, 2024 9:48 AM Bayley Follett B & M Builders Inc X Jul 17, 2024 7:44 AM Patrick Mullen DeSilva Gates Construction LLC X Jul 22, 2024 9:45 AM Michael Gates MARTIN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION X Jul 22, 2024 11:33 AM Felipe Martin A. Teichert & Son, Inc. dba Teichert
Construction
X Jul 17, 2024 7:39 AM William Martin
GEORGE REED, INC. X Jul 17, 2024 10:55 AM Adam Hanson
47 State Streets
Infrastructure Projects
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
November 2019
48 49
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY AND
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
STATE STREETS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the State Streets Infrastructure Projects has been completed and is available for public review. The public may review the IS/MND on the City of West Sacramento website:
www.cityofwestsacramento.org/Government/Departments/Capital Projects and Transportation/ Projects/State Street Infrastructure Projects. The IS/MND can also be reviewed during normal business hours at the City of West Sacramento Capital Projects & Transportation Department office, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, Second Floor, West Sacramento, CA 95691.
The IS/MND is also available for review at the Yolo County Library – West / Arthur F. Turner Library, 1212 Merkley Avenue, West Sacramento, CA 95691.
The IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Resources, Section 15000 et seq.).
Project Name: State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Project Sponsor and CEQA Lead Agency: City of West Sacramento Capital Projects & Transportation Department, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, First Floor, West Sacramento, CA 95691 Project Description: The proposed project consists of replacing approximately 9,600 feet of water main, rehabilitating approximately 36,000 feet of sewer main, curb and gutter replacement, sidewalk repairs, curb ramp installations and pavement rehabilitation with the project.
Construction is scheduled between Jan 2020 – Jan 2021.
Project Location: The Proposed Project is in the State Streets neighborhood of the City of West Sacramento, Yolo County, and is bounded by Jefferson Blvd., Park Blvd., and Stone Blvd. (see Figure 1).
Public Review and Comment Period: In accordance with the time limits provided for by state law, the public review period will extend from November 6, 2019, to December 5, 2019.
Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. on December 5, 2019. Comments may be sent in hard copy or via email to:
Amber Wallace, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
City of West Sacramento Capital Projects & Transportation Department 1110 West Capitol Avenue, First Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Email: [email protected]
50 Park Blvd
Park
Cir
Rose Ct
Buckeye
Dr
Fallbrook
St
16Th
St
18Th
St
Lakewoo
Dr
d
17T
St
h
Acorn
Ct
Sonora
Ave
13Th St
1 1
T h St
Cann
a
Wa y
Alabama
Ave
Drever St
Maryland
Ave
Virginia
Ave
19Th St
Delaware
Ave
Deerwood
St
F ern
w
o
o
d
St
Meadow Rd
Clarendon St
Longcroft St
Soule St
Norfolk Ave
Haverhi
ll St
River Rd
Jefferson
Blvd
15Th St
South River Rd
Westacre Rd
S
a c r a
m
e
n t o
R
i
v
e
r
D e e p Wa t e r C h a n n e l
Figure 1
Proposed Project Site
0 0.1 0.2
Miles
Basebap Sources: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
\\10.10.1.10\GIS_Server\_PROJECTS\19002_West_Sac_Streets\mxd\Fig_2_ProjectSite_110119.mxd 11/4/2019 PG Source: City of West Sacramento 2018 State Streets
Infrastructure Projects
Proposed water
main replacement
Boundary of Proposed
Sanitary Sewer main
Rehab/Repair
Pavement Rehabiliation
boundary area
51 State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for:
City of West Sacramento
Capital Projects & Transportation Department
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 1st Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Contact: Amber Wallace, Associate Civil Engineer
[email protected]
Prepared by:
Horizon Water and Environment
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
Sacramento, CA 95814
Contact: Debra Lilly
[email protected]
November 2019
52 Horizon Water and Environment. 2019. State Streets Infrastructure Projects Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared for City of West Sacramento. November. Sacramento, CA. (HWE 19.002.) 53 State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
i November 2019
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction and Purpose .........................................................................................1-1
1.2 Intent and Scope of this Document...........................................................................1-1
1.3 Public Involvement Process.......................................................................................1-2
1.4 Organization of this Document .................................................................................1-2
1.5 Impact Terminology ..................................................................................................1-3 Chapter 2 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Overview ...................................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Proposed Project Purpose and Objectives................................................................2-1
2.3 Proposed Project Location and Setting .....................................................................2-1
2.4 Proposed Project Elements.......................................................................................2-5
2.4.1 Water Main Replacement ...............................................................................2-6
2.4.2 Gravity Sewer Main Rehabilitation..................................................................2-6
2.4.3 Pavement Restoration.....................................................................................2-6
2.5 Proposed Project Construction .................................................................................2-9
2.5.1 Water Main Replacement ...............................................................................2-9
2.5.2 Sewer Main Rehabilitation and Replacement.................................................2-9
2.5.3 Pavement Restoration...................................................................................2-10
2.5.4 Potential Need for Tree Removal ..................................................................2-10
2.5.5 Construction Equipment................................................................................2-14
2.5.6 Construction Schedule and Timeline.............................................................2-15
2.6 Responsible and Trustee Agencies..........................................................................2-15
2.7 Permits and Approvals ............................................................................................2-16 Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist.................................................................................. 3-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected.......................................................................3-3 Determination.....................................................................................................................3-4
3.1 Aesthetics..................................................................................................................3-5
3.2 Agricultural Resources...............................................................................................3-8
3.3 Air Quality................................................................................................................3-10
3.4 Biological Resources................................................................................................3-15
3.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................3-37
3.6 Energy......................................................................................................................3-48
3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity .................................................................................3-49
3.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .....................................................................................3-54 54 City of West Sacramento Table of Contents
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
ii November 2019
3.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...........................................................................3-56
3.10 Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................................3-61
3.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................3-66
3.12 Mineral Resources...................................................................................................3-67
3.13 Noise........................................................................................................................3-68
3.14 Population and Housing ..........................................................................................3-76
3.15 Public Services.........................................................................................................3-77
3.16 Recreation ...............................................................................................................3-79
3.17 Transportation.........................................................................................................3-81
3.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.........................................................................................3-84
3.19 Utilities and Service Systems...................................................................................3-88
3.20 Wildfire....................................................................................................................3-91
3.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ........................................................................3-92 Chapter 4 Report Preparers ............................................................................................................ 4-1 Chapter 5 References......................................................................................................................... 5-1 Appendices
Appendix A. Arborist Report
Appendix B. Biological Resources Information
Appendix C. Cultural Resources Assessment Report
Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Project Location .....................................................................................................2-3 Figure 2-2. Proposed Project Boundaries.................................................................................2-7 Figure 2-3. Potential Tree Impacts.........................................................................................2-11 Figure 3-1. CNDDB Occurrences of Special-Status Plants within 5 Miles of the Proposed Project..................................................................................................3-19 Figure 3-2. Critical Habitat within 5 Miles of the Proposed Project.......................................3-21 Figure 3-3. CNDDB Occurrences of Special-status Animals within 5 Miles of the Proposed Project..................................................................................................3-23 Figure 3-4. Wetlands in the Vicinity of the Proposed Project................................................3-31 55 City of West Sacramento Table of Contents
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
iii November 2019
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Areas Affected by the Proposed Projects ..............................................................2-5 Table 2-2. Construction Schedule by Stage...........................................................................2-14 Table 2-3. Applicable Permit and Regulatory Requirements................................................2-16 Table 3-1. Yolo‐Solano Air Quality Management District Thresholds of Significance ..........3-11 Table 3-2. NWIC Records Search Results – Previously Recorded Resources........................3-41 Table 3-3. Local Active and Potentially Active Faults............................................................3-50 Table 3-4. Examples of Common Noise Levels......................................................................3-69 Table 3-5. City of West Sacramento Noise Level Standards for Non-transportation Uses......................................................................................................................3-70 Table 3-6. Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment .......................3-70 Table 3-7. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels.....................................................3-72 Table 3-8. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment..........................................3-75 Table 3-9. Recreational Facilities in the Project Area ...........................................................3-79 Table 3-10. Native American Consultation .............................................................................3-85 56 City of West Sacramento Table of Contents
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
iv November 2019
Acronyms and Abbreviations
§ section
A
AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APN Assessor’s parcel number
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measures
B
bgs below ground surface
BMP best management practice
C
C Commercial
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal OES California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Cal/OSHA California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Standards Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCTV closed-circuit television
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDOC California Department of Conservation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CIPP cured-in-place pipe
City City of West Sacramento
CIWMA California Integrated Waste Management Act
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
County County of Yolo
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
D
dB decibel
57 City of West Sacramento Table of Contents
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
v November 2019
dBA A-weighted decibel
dbh diameter at breast height
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
E
EIR Environmental Impact Report
ESL Environmental Screening Level
F
F&G Code California Department of Fish and Game Code
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FTA Federal Transit Administration
G
GHG greenhouse gas
H
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HCP habitat conservation plan
Hz hertz
I
I-80 Interstate 80
in/sec inches per second
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation Report
IS/MND initial study/mitigated negative declaration
L
LR Low Density Residential
Leq equivalent steady-state sound level
Lmax maximum sound level
LOS level of service
M
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MG million gallons
MGD million gallons per day
MLD Most Likely Descendant
N
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCCP natural community conservation plan
NOx oxides of nitrogen
58 City of West Sacramento Table of Contents
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
vi November 2019
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NWI National Wetland Inventory
NWIC Northwest Information Center
P
PCB polychlorine biphyenyls
PERP Portable Equipment Registration Program
PM particulate matter
PM10 particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 particulate matter of aerodynamic radius of 2.5 micrometers or less ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
Proposed Project State Streets Infrastructure Projects
PRC Public Resources Code
PVC polyvinyl chloride
R
RFP Reasonable Further Progress
ROG reactive organic gases
ROW right-of-way
RP Recreation and Park
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
S
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SR State Route
SSMP sewer system management plan
Superfund Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
T
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCR tribal cultural resource
U
U.S. United States
UAIC United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
59 City of West Sacramento Table of Contents
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
vii November 2019
V
VdB vibration velocity in decibels
VOC volatile organic compound
W
Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act of 1965 Y
YSAQMD Yolo‐Solano Air Quality Management District
60 City of West Sacramento Table of Contents
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
viii November 2019
This page intentionally left blank
61 State Streets Infrastructure Projects 1-1 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 Chapter 1
2 Introduction
3 1.1 Introduction and Purpose
4 The City of West Sacramento (City) has prepared this initial study/mitigated negative 5 declaration (IS/MND) to provide the public, responsible agencies, and trustee agencies with 6 information about the potential environmental effects of the proposed State Streets 7 Infrastructure Improvements Project (Proposed Project). This document has been prepared 8 in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as 9 amended (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [Pub. Res. Code] Section 21000 et seq.) and the 10 State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15000 et seq.). 11 The City is evaluating the proposed implementation of multiple infrastructure projects within 12 the State Streets neighborhood located on the east side of the city, bounded by Jefferson 13 Boulevard, Park Boulevard, 15th Street, and Stone Boulevard. Infrastructure improvements 14 would include replacement and rehabilitation of water and sanitary sewer mains and 15 pipelines, as well as rehabilitation of existing curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement. 16 This chapter describes the intent and scope of this IS/MND, the public involvement process, 17 the organization and scope of the document, and specific impact-related terminology used in 18 the document.
19 1.2 Intent and Scope of this Document
20 This IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, under which the Proposed Project 21 is evaluated at a project level (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378). The City of West 22 Sacramento, as the lead agency under CEQA, will consider the Proposed Project’s potential 23 environmental impacts when considering whether to approve the project. This IS/MND is an 24 informational document to be used in the planning and decision-making process for the 25 Proposed Project and does not recommend approval or denial of the Proposed Project. 26 This IS/MND describes the Proposed Project; its environmental setting, including existing 27 conditions and regulatory setting, as necessary; and the potential environmental impacts of 28 the Proposed Project on or with regard to the following topics:
62 City of West Sacramento 1. Introduction
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 1-2 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
▪ Aesthetics
▪ Agriculture/Forestry Resources
▪ Air Quality
▪ Biological Resources
▪ Cultural Resources
▪ Energy
▪ Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
▪ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
▪ Hydrology and Water Quality
▪ Land Use and Planning
▪ Mineral Resources
▪ Noise
▪ Population and Housing
▪ Public Services
▪ Recreation
▪ Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Transportation
▪ Utilities and Service Systems
▪ Wildfire
1 2 1.3 Public Involvement Process
3 Public disclosure and dialogue are priorities under CEQA. State CEQA Guidelines Sections 4 15073 and 15105(b) require that the lead agency designate a period during the IS/MND 5 process when agencies and the public can provide comments on the potential impacts of the 6 Proposed Project. Accordingly, the City is circulating this document for a 30-day public and 7 agency review period. The beginning and ending dates of the comment period are identified 8 in the Notice of Availability.
9 Comments on this IS/MND can be submitted by mail or email to the following contact:
10 Amber Wallace, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
11 City of West Sacramento Capital Projects & Transportation Department 12 1110 West Capitol Avenue, 1st Floor
13 West Sacramento, CA 95691
14 Email: [email protected]
15 All comments received before 5:00 p.m. on the date identified for closure of the public 16 comment period in the Notice of Intent will be considered by the City during its deliberations 17 on whether to approve the Proposed Project.
18 1.4 Organization of this Document
19 This IS/MND contains the following components:
20 Chapter 1, Introduction, provides a brief description of the intent and scope of this 21 IS/MND, the public involvement process under CEQA, the organization of the 22 document, and terminology used in this IS/MND.
23 Chapter 2, Project Description, describes the Proposed Project, including its purpose 24 and goals, the project site where the Proposed Project would be constructed and 25 operated, construction methods, and related permits and approvals. 63 City of West Sacramento 1. Introduction
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 1-3 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 Chapter 3, Environmental Checklist, presents the environmental checklist used to 2 assess the Proposed Project’s potential environmental effects, which is based on the 3 model provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. This chapter includes 4 brief regulatory environmental setting descriptions for each resource topic, evaluates 5 the Proposed Project’s anticipated environmental impacts, and identifies mitigation 6 measures that would be required to reduce potentially significant impacts to a less7 than-significant level. 8 Chapter 4, Report Preparers, identifies the individuals who prepared portions of this 9 document.
10 Chapter 5, References, provides a bibliography of printed references, websites, and 11 personal communications used in preparing this IS/MND. 12 Appendices:
13 Appendix A. Arborist Report
14 Appendix B. Biological Resources Information
15 Appendix C. Cultural/Tribal Cultural Resources Evaluation 16 Appendix D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 17 1.5 Impact Terminology
18 This IS/MND uses the following terminology to describe the environmental effects of the 19 Proposed Project:
20 ▪ A finding of no impact is made when the analysis concludes that the Proposed Project 21 would not affect the particular environmental resource or issue. 22 ▪ An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that no 23 substantial adverse change in the environment would result and that no mitigation is 24 needed.
25 ▪ An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation if the analysis concludes 26 that no substantial adverse change in the environment would result with the 27 implementation of the mitigation measures described. 28 ▪ An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that a 29 substantial effect on the environment could result.
30 ▪ Mitigation refers to specific measures or activities that would be adopted by the lead 31 agency to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for an otherwise 32 significant impact.
33 ▪ A cumulative impact refers to one that can result when a change in the environment 34 would result from the incremental impacts of a project along with other related past, 35 present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Significant cumulative impacts 36 might result from impacts that are individually minor but collectively significant. The 37 cumulative impact analysis in this IS/MND focuses on whether the Proposed Project’s 38 incremental contribution to significant cumulative impacts caused by the project in 39 combination with past, present, or probable future projects is cumulatively 40 considerable.
64 City of West Sacramento 1. Introduction
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 1-4 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 ▪ Because the term “significant” has a specific usage in evaluating the impacts under 2 CEQA, it is used to describe only the significance of impacts and is not used in other 3 contexts within this document. Synonyms such as “substantial” are used when not 4 discussing the significance of an environmental impact. 65 State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-1 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 Chapter 2
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3 2.1 Overview
4 The City of West Sacramento (City) is evaluating the environmental effects of implementing 5 multiple infrastructure projects within the State Streets neighborhood. The State Streets 6 Infrastructure Improvement Project (Proposed Project) can be characterized generally as 7 improvements to water infrastructure, sanitary sewer infrastructure, and existing pavement. 8 The neighborhood, located southwest of the Interstate 80 (I-80)/Jefferson Boulevard 9 interchange and west of the Sacramento River, is bounded by Jefferson Boulevard, Park 10 Boulevard, and Stone Boulevard.
11 This chapter describes the Proposed Projects and discusses its purpose, objectives, location, 12 proposed actions, and necessary permits and approvals. 13 2.2 Proposed Project Purpose and Objectives
14 The purpose of the State Streets Water Capacity and Sewer Rehabilitation Project is to correct 15 some of the infrastructure deficiencies identified in the 2015 Water System Master Plan 16 Update (City of West Sacramento 2017a) and 2015 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update (City 17 of West Sacramento 2017b), as well as conducting additional pavement and curb/gutter 18 maintenance activities in the area.
19 Project objectives are as follows:
20 ▪ replace the aging water as identified in the City’s 2015 Water Master Plan Update and, 21 to improve water system reliability and to improve fire flows in the area; 22 ▪ replace or rehabilitate aging sewer pipelines as identified in the City’s 2015 Sanitary 23 Sewer Master Plan Update; and
24 ▪ repair and/or remove and replace curb, gutter, sidewalk, and retrofits required to 25 comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and rehabilitate deficient 26 street sections.
27 2.3 Proposed Project Location and Setting
28 The State Streets area is located in the central portion of the City of West Sacramento, on the 29 eastern border of Yolo County with Sacramento County (Figure 2-1). The neighborhood is 30 located southwest of the Interstate 80 (I-80)/Jefferson Boulevard interchange and west of 31 the Sacramento River.
32 The State Streets neighborhood is one of the city’s older communities, with the earliest 33 development dating back to the 1920s and the largest influx taking place after World War II, 34 in the early 1950s. Bounded by Jefferson Boulevard, Park Boulevard, and Stone Boulevard, 66 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-2 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 the neighborhood comprises the eastern half of what is also referred to as Old West 2 Sacramento. Approximately 625 single-family residences are located in the neighborhood, 3 with an estimated population of approximately 1,750 persons. The area is designated entirely 4 as Low Density Residential (LR) except for a community park between Regent Street and 5 Euclid Street, designated Recreation and Park (RP), and a small commercial area north of the 6 intersection of Maryland Avenue and Virginia Avenue, designated Commercial (C). 7 67
16 99
84 99
113
16 113
70 65
99 45
50 80
80 80
BUS
80 5
5 5
American River
Sacramento River
113
113
Deep Water Ship Channel
SacramentoSacramento
River
Sacramento
Citrus Heights
West
Sacramento
North
Highlands
Pleasant
Grove
Knights
Landing Rocklin
Lincoln
Fair Oaks
Carmichael
Rancho Cordova
Elk Grove
Courtland
Davis
Dixon
Woodland
Roseville
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Figure 2-1.
Project Location Map
Prepared by:
Project Vicinity
68 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-4 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank
69 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-5 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 2.4 Proposed Project Elements
2 The Proposed Project consists of replacing approximately 9,600 feet of water main within 3 eight identified residential streets and replacing or rehabilitating approximately 36,000 feet 4 of gravity sewer main . Figure 2-2 illustrates the project boundaries and the streets that 5 would be affected. Two project boundaries are shown: (1) the streets that would undergo 6 water main replacement and sewer main replacement and (2) the larger limits of the closed7 circuit television (CCTV) sewer investigations, sewer lining, and curb/gutter/pavement 8 rehabilitation. The CCTV inspection has already been conducted for most portions of the 9 project area, and almost all of the sewer lines are suitable for rehabilitation rather than 10 replacement. The remaining areas would be inspected to identify the potential rehabilitation 11 needs for the remaining sewer mains in the larger project boundary. Table 2-1 identifies the 12 streets affected by the Proposed Project where water main improvements and sewer main 13 replacements are proposed.
14 Table 2-1. Areas Affected by the Proposed Projects
Street Cross Streets
Approximate
Length (linear
feet)
Water System Improvements
Maryland Avenue 18th Street to 15th Street 1,912
Delaware Avenue Regent Street to 15th Street 1,906
Pennsylvania Avenue Regent Street to Alameda Boulevard 1,472 Alabama Avenue Alameda Boulevard to 15th Street 598
Virginia Avenue Alameda Boulevard to 15th Street 1,035
17th Street Park Boulevard to Alabama Avenue 1,117
Alameda Boulevard Maryland Avenue to Alabama Avenue 775 Circle Street Alabama Avenue to Virginia Avenue 770
Total 9,585
Sewer Line Replacement and Rehabilitation
Sewer pipelines in the area bounded by Jefferson Boulevard, Park Boulevard, Stone Boulevard, and 15th Street (see Section 2.5.2, “Sewer Main Rehabilitation and Replacement,” for more information)
36,235
Pavement Restoration
Curb, gutter, sidewalk, and driveways in the area bounded by Jefferson Boulevard, Park Boulevard, Stone Boulevard, and 15th Street (see Section 2.5.3, “Pavement Restoration,” for more information)
As needed
throughout
15 Source: Domenichelli and Associates 2018; City of West Sacramento 2019 70 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-6 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 2.4.1 Water Main Replacement
2 The City would replace approximately 9,600 feet of water main using open-cut installation at 3 the current locations. Based on City design requirements, all water mains within the City’s 4 distribution system would be replaced with minimum 8-inch-diameter pipes. The existing 5 asbestos cement (transite) and welded steel piping would be abandoned in place and 6 replaced with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, which is an acceptable option for potable water 7 systems. Water mains would be backfilled by at least 30 inches of soil and pavement (within 8 the existing right-of-way [ROW]), installed in accordance with City standards. A geotechnical 9 engineering study prepared for the Proposed Project (Youngdahl Consulting Group 2018) 10 includes recommendations for backfilling in areas that contain unsuitable material, if any are 11 identified.
12 The existing water mains would be abandoned in place in accordance with City procedures. 13 Each main not in use would be disconnected and capped with a minimum of 24 inches of 14 concrete injected into the pipe, mushrooming 12 inches beyond the end of the pipe. Water 15 mains that would remain in use would be capped with cast iron fittings, with a concrete thrust 16 block placed against the cap.
17 Fire hydrants would be installed at or near street intersections at a maximum spacing of 500 18 feet; on streets without fronting lots, fire hydrants would have a maximum spacing of 1,000 19 feet.
20 All properties in West Sacramento are served by water meters. If any existing water meters 21 would need to be relocated to accommodate the new water main, they would be reconnected 22 at a suitable location.
23 2.4.2 Gravity Sewer Main Rehabilitation
24 The Proposed Project includes rehabilitation or replacement of approximately 36,235 linear 25 feet of sewer main within the project area. The City has used video inspection to determine 26 rehabilitation or replacement for most of the project area; inspection is in process for the 27 remaining areas. This project would use the existing sewer main alignments and current pipe 28 depths through a trenchless process. Some excavation may be required for repair of service 29 laterals.
30 Rehabilitation method alternatives and recommendations are presented in Section 2.5. 31 2.4.3 Pavement Restoration
32 The City would perform a project-wide pavement restoration project as part of the Proposed 33 Project. Approximately 16,000 linear feet of curbs and gutters, along with two valley gutters, 34 sidewalks, and residential and commercial driveways within the State Streets neighborhood 35 would be repaired, rehabilitated, or replaced during project construction. The City has 36 evaluated the condition of these facilities throughout the project area and identified locations 37 in need of repair or replacement.
71 Park Blvd
Park
Cir
Rose Ct
Buckeye
Dr
Fallbrook
St
16Th
St
18Th
St
Lakewoo
Dr
d
17T
St
h
Acorn
Ct
Sonora
Ave
13Th St
1 1
T h St
Cann
a
Wa y
Alabama
Ave
Drever St
Maryland
Ave
Virginia
Ave
19Th St
Delaware
Ave
Deerwood
St
F ern
w
o
o
d
St
Meadow Rd
Clarendon St
Longcroft St
Soule St
Norfolk Ave
Haverhi
ll St
River Rd
Jefferson
Blvd
15Th St
South River Rd
Westacre Rd
S
a c r a
m
e
n t o
R
i
v
e
r
D e e p Wa t e r C h a n n e l
Figure 2-2
Proposed Project Site
0 0.1 0.2
Miles
Basebap Sources: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,
GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,
\\10.10.1.10\GIS_Server\_PROJECTS\19002_West_Sac_Streets\mxd\Fig_2_ProjectSite_110119.mxd 11/4/2019 PG Source: City of West Sacramento 2018 State Streets
Infrastructure Projects
Proposed water
main replacement
Boundary of Proposed
Sanitary Sewer main
Rehab/Repair
Pavement Rehabiliation
boundary area
72 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-8 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank
73 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-9 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 2.5 Proposed Project Construction
2 Information on construction methods for the Proposed Project is provided in the Design 3 Criteria Technical Memorandum prepared for the Proposed Project in December 2018 4 (Domenichelli and Associates 2018).
5 2.5.1 Water Main Replacement
6 The new water mains would be installed using conventional open-cut methods in accordance 7 with City standards and the City’s encroachment permit requirements. Although water 8 service lines are sometimes installed using trenchless boring technology to minimize surface 9 impacts, the open-cut method is considered a feasible installation method for this project 10 because pavement restoration is also a part of the project. 11 The existing water main and water services would be shut down during scheduled mainline 12 shutdowns and when the existing water services are being crossed over to the new water 13 services and mains. The City’s Utility Maintenance Division would notify all affected users in 14 writing at least 48 hours in advance of service interruption. Shutdowns would not be allowed 15 on Friday, weekends, or City-recognized holidays.
16 The existing water mains and water services would remain in service (except for limited shut17 downs during construction) until the new main and water services have been installed and 18 backfilled, flushed, pressure tested, and passed bacteriological tests. 19 2.5.2 Sewer Main Rehabilitation and Replacement
20 Rehabilitation Methods
21 Two methods would be used for rehabilitation and replacement of sewer mains as part of the 22 Proposed Project. A total of 36,235 feet of sewer pipelines within the area bounded by 23 Jefferson Boulevard, Park Boulevard, Stone Boulevard, and 15th Street will be inspected to 24 determine the need for replacement or rehabilitation. All lines will be either lined with Cured 25 in Place Pipe or replaced. Sewer laterals may be rehabilitated and replaced as needed. 26 Conventional Open-cut Removal and Replacement
27 The conventional rehabilitation method requires the contractor to open-cut and shore the 28 trench over the existing sewer pipe, remove existing pipe, and install the new sewer main 29 pipe in the same location. This method would be used for localized spot repairs at locations 30 where the existing sewer main has been significantly compromised (e.g., broken pipe), based 31 on information obtained from the CCTV inspection, and at locations where the sewer main 32 cannot be lined or where a substantial length of the sewer main needs to be replaced. New 33 sewer mains installed through the open-cut method are typically PVC pipe. 34 Cured-in-Place Pipe
35 The cured-in-place pipe (CIPP) rehabilitation method involves lining the existing “host pipe” 36 with a resin-impregnated felt liner that is inflated and cured in place. This method is typically 37 used for full-length rehabilitations. In some instances, spot repairs may be necessary to 38 successfully perform the lining procedure. In all cases, a resin-impregnated felt liner is the 74 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-10 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 only material used in this rehabilitation process; the liner may be either a structural or non2 structural liner. Based on the CCTV inspection and the potential for void spaces within the 3 existing pipe backfill, a structural liner is recommended when the CIPP method is used. 4 The CIPP rehabilitation method would be most commonly used to rehabilitate the existing 5 sewer mains. Based on the CCTV inspection, most of the sewer mains inspected appear they 6 would accommodate the CIPP process. It is anticipated that more sewer main cleaning and 7 some spot repairs would be necessary to adequately remove solids and/or eliminate pipe 8 sags and joint off-sets before the CIPP method can be implemented. 9 Sewer System Management Plan
10 For all rehabilitation methods, the City’s contractor would be required to prepare, submit for 11 City approval, and implement a sewer system management plan (SSMP) specific to each 12 rehabilitation method. The SSMP would identify the labor, materials, and equipment 13 provided to avoid any sanitary sewer overflows, sewer impacts on customers, and impacts 14 on the other portions of the City sewer system not actively being rehabilitated. The SSMP 15 would outline the contractor’s approach to bypass sewer flows and/or temporarily plug the 16 sewer system while performing the sewer main rehabilitation. 17 2.5.3 Pavement Restoration
18 Construction methods for pavement may include mill and fill, full-depth-reclamation or cold19 in-place replacement. Temporary pavement would be placed during pipeline installation. 20 These activities could include installation of any new sewer mains, locations of spot repairs, 21 manhole rehabilitation or replacements, sewer lateral reconnections or replacement, and any 22 other activity where pavement would be disturbed. The City may consider a reduced final 23 trench thickness (3 inches rather than the standard 4 inches) or allow for restoration of the 24 trench section only (no T-trench section required).
25 2.5.4 Potential Need for Tree Removal
26 As described above, homes in the State Streets neighborhood were constructed between the 27 1910s and the 1950s. Many properties have well-established landscape trees, some of which 28 have grown over or beneath the sidewalk and road and may have caused damage to pavement 29 and/or pipelines. In addition, water and sewer pipelines for the neighborhood were installed 30 at approximately the same time these trees were planted. As a result, some tree roots may be 31 located directly in the path of excavation and construction activities for the Proposed Project. 32 To identify which trees could be affected by the Proposed Project, surveyors with the City 33 Capital Projects & Transportation Department compared the project map (Figure 2-2) with a 34 map of trees in the project area. West Coast Arborists then conducted a tree survey of the 35 neighborhood and identified, measured, and assessed the health of the 68 indicated trees in 36 fall 2018 (Figure 2-3). Of these, five trees were recommended for removal regardless of 37 project construction because of location, poor structure, or poor health. An additional two 38 trees were recommended for extensive pruning to reduce safety hazards from poor structure. 39 More information about the arborist’s evaluation is provided in Section 3.4, “Biological 40 Resources,” and Appendix A, Arborist Report.
41 75
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Figure 2-3.
Mapped Locations of Potential Tree Impacts
Prepared by:
76 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-12 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
This page intentionally left blank
77 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-13 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 The City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 8.24 of the West Sacramento Municipal 2 Code) protects several classifications of trees that may be affected by a typical construction 3 project:
4 ▪ Heritage tree: Any living tree with a trunk circumference of 75 inches or more or a 5 native oak with a trunk circumference of 50 inches or more, measured 4 feet 6 inches 6 from ground level
7 ▪ Landmark tree: Any tree or stand of trees that is especially prominent, stately, or of 8 historical significance as designated by the city council 9 ▪ Native oak tree: A living tree of any species of the Quercus genus (all oaks, including 10 the nine native California oaks); for example, the interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), 11 valley oak or California white oak (Quercus lobata), or blue oak (Quercus douglasii) 12 ▪ Street tree: Any tree growing or placed within the tree maintenance strip or public 13 right-of-way
14 Under the Tree Preservation Ordinance, trees in these classifications that are affected by 15 construction activity must be replaced; other categories of trees, such as landscaping trees 16 on private property, are not protected. For this project, the City tree administrator has 17 determined that, because of the significance of trees as a key element of the neighborhood’s 18 identity, the requirement under the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance to replace only 19 heritage, native, and landmark trees and street trees would be expanded to include to all trees 20 that require removal.
21 During construction, West Coast Arborists would evaluate trees on a case-by-case basis 22 where construction activities are identified as affecting roots or branches. The City would 23 make every reasonable effort to preserve trees where feasible; however, the nature of the 24 pipeline work being proposed allows limited opportunity for modification to avoid impacts. 25 The City would make replacement trees available to homeowners through the City Parks and 26 Recreation Department’s West Sacramento Tree Program. This program provides free trees 27 to homeowners who attend a Free Tree Workshop (City of West Sacramento n.d.). The 28 following tree species are available through the program:
29 ▪ Valley Oak (Quercus lobata)
30 ▪ Cork Oak (Quercus suber)
31 ▪ Frontier Elm (Ulmus ‘Frontier’)
32 ▪ Prospector Elm (Ulmus wilsoniana)
33 ▪ Golden Rain (Koelreuteria paniculate)
34 ▪ Trident Maple (Acer buergerianum)
35 ▪ Maindenhair Tree (Ginkgo biloba)
36 ▪ Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara)
37 These species have been selected as being drought resistant and “utility friendly” (i.e., their 38 height and branching structure are not likely to interfere with power lines, and their root 39 system is not likely to affect underground pipelines or sidewalks), as well as based on their 40 speed of growth, hardiness, and lifespan.
78 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-14 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 2.5.5 Construction Equipment
2 Approximately 20-35 construction workers would commute to and from the project site each 3 work day over the approximately 18-month work period. The main pieces of equipment that 4 may be used are the following:
Water Main and Sewer Main Installation
▪ track-mounted excavators (2)
▪ end dump/haul trucks (4)
▪ flat-bed delivery truck (1)
▪ concrete truck (1)
▪ backhoe (1)
▪ front-end loaders (2)
▪ vac truck (1)
▪ concrete saw (1)
▪ pipe cutting saw (2)
▪ water truck (1)
▪ street sweeper (1)
▪ “Ditch Witch” horizontal directional
drilling machine (1)
▪ compressor/jack hammer (1)
▪ crew trucks (F150-F350) (3)
CIPP Installation
▪ Television Inspection truck (1)
▪ vac truck (2)
▪ refig truck/liner truck (1)
▪ generator truck (1)
▪ water truck (1)
▪ boiler truck (1)
▪ crew trucks (F150-F350) (3)
5 Table 2-2 provides information about construction scheduling during each stage of 6 construction. Most soil excavated from the project construction areas would be reused to fill 7 the excavated areas; the remaining soil would be off-hauled to a landfill. 8 Table 2-2. Construction Schedule by Stage
Stage Estimated Dates
Sewer Rehabilitation
Open cut sewer main and lateral installation mid-January through mid-March 2020 Sewer main CIPP rehabilitation mid-January through June 2020 Water Main Improvement
Water main installation mid-June through August 2020
Water service installation August through September 2020 Trench pavement restoration and street repaving March 2021 9 Source: Dugan, pers. comm., 2019
79 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-15 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 2.5.6 Construction Schedule and Timeline
2 Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to take place over approximately 18 3 months and is expected to begin in January 2020. Table 2-2 provides general information 4 about the phasing and schedule for the Proposed Project. 5 Construction activities would occur Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. 6 as allowed by City ordinance. Work on Saturdays, Sundays, and state holidays may be 7 permitted on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the City. 8 The construction process would take place in three parts. 9 ▪ Sewer replacement would affect approximately 523 homes over the first six months of 10 2020. Cleaning would progress at a rate of 12,000 feet per day, and lining would move 11 at 800 feet per day.
12 ▪ Water line replacement would take place in summer of 2020, progressing at a rate of 13 200-300 feet per day.
14 ▪ Repaving of the streets would take place in spring 2021. The new base would be 15 compacted at a rate of 1 block per day (drivable immediately afterward) and then left to 16 cure for 2 days. Grading and paving would take place on 1 block per day. 17 In all, active construction would take place in front of each affected residence for 18 approximately 6 days over the year-long construction period. 19 2.6 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
20 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines a responsible agency as “a public 21 agency, other than the lead agency, which has responsibility for carrying out or approving a 22 project” (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21069). A trustee agency is “a state agency 23 that has jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project, that are held in trust 24 for the people of the State of California” (PRC Section 21070). For the Proposed Project, the 25 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, North Central Region, is considered a trustee 26 agency. Responsible agencies for the Proposed Project are the Central Valley Regional Water 27 Quality Control Board and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. 80 City of West Sacramento 2. Project Description
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2-16 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 2.7 Permits and Approvals
2 The permits and regulatory compliance requirements for the Proposed Project are described 3 in Table 2-3.
4 Table 2-3. Applicable Permit and Regulatory Requirements Regulatory Agency Law/Regulation Purpose
Permit/Authorization
Type
Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control
Board
Clean Water Act
Section 402
National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)
program regulates
discharges of
pollutants
NPDES General Permit
Construction Permit
Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Control
Board
Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control
Program
Regulates discharge of
pollutants into surface
waters
Section 401 water
quality certification
California Department
of Fish and Wildlife –
North Central Region
California Endangered
Species Act (CESA) (Fish
and Game Code
Section 2081[b])
Regulates “take” of
species listed under
CESA as threatened or
endangered
Incidental Take Permit, if
necessary
Yolo-Solano Air Quality
Management District
Stationary Source
Permit
Required for activities
that emit pollutants
Authority to Construct
and Permit to Operate
(for generators or
pumps if larger than 50
horsepower)
5 81
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-1 November 2019
1 Chapter 3
2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
3 This chapter of the initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) assesses the 4 environmental impacts of the City of West Sacramento’s State Streets Infrastructure Projects 5 (Proposed Project) based on the environmental checklist provided in Appendix G of the State 6 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The environmental resources and 7 potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project are described in the individual 8 sections below. Each section includes a discussion of the rationale used to determine the 9 significance level of the Proposed Project’s environmental impact for each checklist question. 10 For environmental impacts that have the potential to be significant, mitigation measures are 11 identified that would reduce the severity of the impact to a less-than-significant level.
1. Project Title State Streets Infrastructure Projects
2. Lead Agency Name and
Address
City of West Sacramento
Capital Projects & Transportation Department
1110 West Capitol Avenue, 1st Floor
West Sacramento, CA 95691
3. Contact Person, Phone
Number and Email
Amber Wallace, P.E., Associate Civil Engineer
(916) 617-5327
[email protected]
4. Project Location and
Assessor's parcel number
(APN)
Neighborhood located southwest of the Interstate 80
(I-80)/Jefferson Boulevard interchange and west of
the Sacramento River, bounded by Jefferson
Boulevard, Park Boulevard, and Stone Boulevard,
including road right-of-way
5. Property Owner(s) City of West Sacramento
6. General Plan Designation Mostly Low Density Residential District (LR); some Recreation and Parks (RP), Commercial (C)
7. Zoning Mostly Residential One Family (R-1-A); some
Residential-Medium Density (R-2), Recreation and
Parks (RP), Commercial (C)
8. Description of Project The Proposed Project would involve upgrading water, sanitary sewer pipelines , and repairing
and/or removing and replacing curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, and rehabilitate pavement .
9. Surrounding Land Uses
and Setting
Residential, Open Space, Recreation and Parks,
Public/Quasi Public, and commercial uses surround
the project location, with the Sacramento River on
the east. Residential uses border the western side of
82 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-2 November 2019
the project site with a small strip of open space
bordering the southwestern most section, Sam
Combs Park is located to the southeast, railroad
tracks are located along the southern border of the
site, and commercial buildings are located along the
eastern border.
10. Other Public Agencies
whose Approval or Input
May Be Needed
▪ Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board
▪ California Department of Fish and Wildlife –
North Central Region
▪ Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
11. Native American
Consultation
The United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn
Rancheria (UAIC) and the Yocha Dehe Wintun
Nation, both tribes with a traditional and cultural
affiliation to the Project area, had previously
requested consultation with the City on department
projects pursuant to PRC section (§) 21080.3.1. The
City sent Project notification letters, dated February
1, 2019, to both tribes via United States (U.S.) mail
with a returned receipt. The Yocha Dehe Wintun
Nation responded in a letter dated February 19,
2019, stating that the tribe “would like to participate in ongoing consultation.” The UAIC responded in a
letter dated March 11, 2019, requesting consultation
under Assembly Bill (AB) 52, copies of all cultural
resources record search materials and
environmental documents, and indicated a desire to
meet to discuss the project. The requested
consultation with both tribes has taken place.
1 2
83 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-3 November 2019
1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
2 The environmental factors checked below would potentially be affected by the Proposed 3 Project, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ Aesthetics
☐ Agriculture and Forestry Resources
☐ Air Quality
☒ Biological Resources
☒ Cultural Resources
☐ Energy
☒ Geology/Soils
☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions
☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality
☐ Land Use/Planning
☐ Mineral Resources
☒ Noise
☐ Population/Housing
☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation
☒ Transportation
☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems
☐ Wildfire
☒ Mandatory Findings of Significance
4 84
85 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-5 November 2019
1 3.1 AESTHETICS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Except as provided in Public Resources Code
Section 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a
state scenic highway?
c. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public
views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project
is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare
which would adversely affect day or nighttime
views in the area?
2 3
4 The California Scenic Highway Program, a provision of the Streets and Highways Code, 5 functions to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of California (California Department of 6 Transportation [Caltrans] 2018). The state highway system includes designated scenic 7 highways and those that are eligible for designation as scenic highways. The nearest 8 designated scenic highway is State Route (SR) 160 south of Freeport, approximately 11 miles 9 southeast of the project area (Caltrans 2019).
10 As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, the State Streets neighborhood dates back to 11 the 1920s, with the largest influx of population taking place in the early 1950s. The 12 neighborhood consists of approximately 625 single-family residences situated on paved 13 streets. Many properties have well-established landscape trees, some of which have grown 14 over or beneath the sidewalk and road and may have caused damage to pavement and/or 15 pipelines. The streets have curb, gutter, and sidewalk that are in disrepair due to the age of 16 the construction and disruption by street trees. Two small parks, Fred and Leila Holmes Park 17 and Memorial Park, are located in the midst of the neighborhood, and a small commercial 18 area is located at Maryland Avenue and Virginia Avenue. 86 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-6 November 2019
1 a. Adverse effects on scenic vistas (No Impact)
2 A scenic vista is generally considered a view of an area that has remarkable scenery or a 3 natural or cultural resource that is indigenous to the area. No portion of the project area has 4 been designated as, or is located in the vicinity of, a scenic vista. The project area is an urban 5 residential area. Therefore, there would be no impact. 6 b. Damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock 7 outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway (No 8 Impact)
9 The nearest state-designated scenic highway is approximately 11 miles southeast along the 10 Sacramento River at Freeport. No scenic resources are visible from the State Streets 11 neighborhood, and no scenic resources are located at or near the project area. Therefore, 12 there would be no impact.
13 c. Degrade the existing visual character or quality of views in non14 urbanized areas, or conflict with applicable zoning and other 15 regulations governing scenic quality in urbanized areas (Less than 16 Significant)
17 The project area is an urban residential neighborhood. The City of West Sacramento has no 18 zoning or other regulations related to scenic quality that would apply to the Proposed Project 19 or the project area. As described in Section 2.5.4, “Potential Need for Tree Removal,” some 20 landscape trees have grown over or beneath the sidewalk and road and may have caused 21 damage to pavement and/or pipelines. As a result, some tree roots may be located directly in 22 the path of excavation and construction activities for the Proposed Project. 23 As part of planning for the Proposed Project, surveyors with the City Capital Projects & 24 Transportation Department compared the project map (Figure 2-2) with a map of trees in the 25 project area. West Coast Arborists then conducted a tree survey of the neighborhood and 26 identified, measured, and assessed the health of the 68 indicated trees in fall 2018 27 (Figure 2-3). Of these, five trees were recommended for removal regardless of project 28 construction because of location, poor structure, or poor health. Two additional trees were 29 recommended for extensive pruning to reduce safety hazards from poor structure. 30 During construction, West Coast Arborists would evaluate trees on a case-by-case basis 31 where construction activities are identified as affecting roots or branches. The City would 32 make every reasonable effort to preserve trees where feasible; however, the nature of the 33 pipeline work being proposed allows limited opportunity for modification to avoid impacts. 34 The City would also make replacement trees available to homeowners; more information 35 about this process is provided in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources.” As a result, the impact 36 of the Proposed Project on the existing visual character of the project area would be less than 37 significant.
87 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-7 November 2019
1 d. New sources of substantial light or glare (Less than Significant) 2 Construction activities would typically be performed Monday through Friday between 7:00 3 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. as allowed by City ordinance. Work on Saturdays, Sundays, and state 4 holidays may be permitted on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the City. Therefore, 5 nighttime work would likely be infrequent, and project activities would not generally result 6 in additional lighting in the project area that could affect the surrounding residences. No 7 external changes would result that would involve additional lighting; therefore, no new 8 sources of light or glare would be created. Therefore, this impact would be less than 9 significant.
88 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-8 November 2019
1 3.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a California Land Conservation Act of 1965
(Williamson Act) contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland
(as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by Government Code
section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
2 3
4 According to the California Department of Conservation (CDOC), no land within or adjacent 5 to the project area is classified as Important Farmland. The project area is designated as 6 urban or built-up land (CDOC 2017). The State Streets neighborhood is an urban residential neighborhood that has been developed since the mid-20th 7 century, and no agricultural areas 8 are located in the general vicinity.
89 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-9 November 2019
1 a, e. Convert farmland to non-agriculture use, or result in conflicts with or 2 loss of agricultural or forest lands (No Impact)
3 No land within or adjacent to the project area is classified as Important Farmland by the 4 CDOC. The project area is designated as urban or built-up land (CDOC 2017). Although many 5 landscape trees are present within the neighborhood, these trees are ornamental and are not 6 part of a stand intended for commercial production. Therefore, the Proposed Project would 7 not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or result in conflicts with or 8 loss of agricultural or forest lands. There would be no impact. 9 b-c. Conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, Williamson Act 10 Contract, or forest land or timber land (No Impact)
11 Land use designations in the project area are Low Density Residential (LR); Recreation and 12 Park (RP), for the small park areas; and Commercial (C) for a small commercial area north of 13 the intersection of Maryland Avenue and Virginia Avenue. No agricultural or timberland 14 zoning is present in or near the project area. There would be no impact. 15 d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non16 forest use (No Impact) 17 Because no forest land or timberland is present in the project area, there would be no impact. 90 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-10 November 2019
1 3.3 AIR QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
When available, the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality
management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
d. Result in other emissions (such as those
leading to odors) adversely affecting a
substantial number of people?
2 3 West Sacramento is within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of 4 the Yolo‐Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). The YSAQMD is part of the 5 Sacramento Federal Non‐Attainment Area for ground‐level ozone and fine particulate matter 6 (i.e., particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter, or PM2.5) pollution set 7 by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (YSAQMD 2018). 8 Air quality plans applicable to the Project site include the Sacramento Regional 2008 National 9 Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 8‐Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further 10 Progress (RFP) Plan (YSAQMD 2017) and the PM2.5 Implementation/Maintenance Plan 11 (YSAQMD 2013). The 8‐Hour Ozone Plan demonstrates how existing and new control 12 strategies will provide the necessary future emission reductions to meet the federal Clean Air 13 Act requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment of the 1997 8‐hour ozone 14 NAAQS for the Sacramento region. The PM2.5 Plan shows that the region has met the 15 redesignation requirements and requests that the USEPA redesignate the area to attainment. 16 The plan also analyzes measures that were implemented to achieve attainment and that will 17 provide for maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS.
18 The YSAQMD’s CEQA thresholds of significance are shown in Table 3-1. 91 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-11 November 2019
1 Table 3-1. Yolo‐Solano Air Quality Management District Thresholds of Significance Pollutant Threshold
ROG 10 tons/year
NOX 10 tons/year
CO Violation of a State ambient air quality standard for CO PM10 80 lbs/day
2 3 Notes: Emissions of CO from construction activities are not considered to be an issue of concern because 4 construction activities are not considered to be a major source of CO. In addition, the YSAQMD is in 5 attainment status for CO. CO = carbon monoxide; lbs/day = pounds per day; NOx = nitrogen oxides; PM10 6 = particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter; ROG = reactive organic gases. 7 Source: YSAQMD 2007
8 USEPA and California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate various stationary sources, area 9 sources, and mobile sources. USEPA has regulations involving performance standards for 10 specific sources that may release toxic air contaminants (TACs), known as hazardous air 11 pollutants (HAPs) at the federal level. In addition, USEPA has regulations involving emission 12 criteria for off-road sources such as emergency generators, construction equipment, and 13 vehicles. CARB is responsible for setting emission standards for vehicles sold in California 14 and for other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road equipment. 15 CARB also establishes passenger vehicle fuel specifications. Airborne Toxic Control Measures 16 (ATCMs), including the following relevant measures, are implemented to address sources of 17 TACs:
18 ▪ ATCM for Diesel Particulate Matter from Portable Engines Rated at 50 Horsepower 19 and Greater
20 ▪ ATCM to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling 21 ▪ ATCM to Reduce Particulate Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines – Standards for 22 Non-vehicular Diesel Fuel
23 ▪ ATCM for Stationary Compression Ignition Engines
24 ▪ Asbestos ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations 25 26 CARB has several vehicle fleet regulations that cover fossil-fueled equipment operated at a 27 facility. These regulations require owners of equipment and vehicle fleets to meet fleet-wide 28 specified engine emission levels over time. Obligations include equipment registration, 29 equipment labeling, and reporting requirements. These regulations include the following 30 fleet rules:
92 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-12 November 2019
1 ▪ Rule for On-Road Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Public and Utility Fleets, 2 ▪ Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP),
3 ▪ Large Spark-Ignition Engine Fleet Requirements Regulation, and 4 ▪ In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation.
5 YSAQMD Rule 403 requires that visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the 6 Project will be prevented to the maximum extent feasible. During clearing, grading, 7 earthmoving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled 8 by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures:
9 ▪ All material excavated or graded will be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive 10 amounts of dust.
11 ▪ Watering will occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferably in the 12 late morning and after work is done for the day.
13 ▪ All material transported off‐site will be either sufficiently watered or securely 14 covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
15 ▪ The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will 16 be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. 17 YSAQMD recommends that even projects not exceeding district particulate mater (PM) 18 thresholds should implement best management practices (BMPs) to reduce dust emissions 19 and avoid localized health impacts. The recommended BMPs to reduce PM10 include the 20 following:
21 ▪ Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. 22 ▪ Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. 23 ▪ Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials. 24 ▪ Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within 25 construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days). 26 ▪ Cover inactive storage piles.
27 ▪ Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. 28 29 BMPs to reduce construction equipment exhaust focus on strategies that reduce NOX, ROG, 30 and PM10 emissions. These strategies may include restricting unnecessary vehicle idling to 31 5 minutes, using reformulated and emulsified fuels, incorporating catalyst and filtration 32 technologies, and modernizing the equipment fleet with cleaner repower and newer engines, 33 among others.
93 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-13 November 2019
1 a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality 2 plan (Less than Significant)
3 The Proposed Project would include improvements to utility infrastructure, which would 4 require a maximum excavation depth of 7 feet, as well as rehabilitation of pavement and 5 street surface. Work would be completed within existing right‐of‐way; however, work within 6 Caltrans right‐of‐way on Jefferson Boulevard, if necessary, would require an encroachment 7 permit. Construction duration would be approximately 18 months. 8 As detailed below in item (b), the Proposed Project would not result in significant air quality 9 impacts and would not increase exposure of sensitive receptors to air pollutants. The 10 Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of applicable air quality 11 plans. This impact would be less than significant.
12 b. Cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for 13 which the project region is a nonattainment area (Less than 14 Significant)
15 The Proposed Project involves repair, replacement, and upgrade of a portion of the City’s 16 water and sewer infrastructure; repair and replacement of curb, gutter, and sidewalk; and 17 rehabilitation of deficient street sections throughout the State Streets neighborhood. During 18 construction, short‐term degradation of air quality may occur due to the release of particulate 19 emissions generated by excavation. Emissions from construction equipment also are 20 anticipated and would include CO, NOX, ROG, PM10, PM2.5, and toxic air contaminants (e.g., 21 diesel exhaust particulate matter).
22 Excavation and roadway construction would involve paving roadway surfaces. Construction‐ 23 related effects on air quality would be greatest during excavation, handling, and transport of 24 soils. If not properly controlled, these activities would temporarily generate PM10, PM2.5, 25 CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), NOX, and volatile organic compounds (VOC). The main source of 26 fugitive dust would be excavated soils. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, 27 depending on the nature and magnitude of construction activity and local weather conditions. 28 PM10 emissions would also vary depending on soil moisture, the silt content of soil, wind 29 speed, and the amount of equipment operating at the time. Larger dust particles would settle 30 near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater distances from the 31 construction site.
32 In addition to dust‐related PM10 emissions, heavy trucks and construction equipment 33 powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOX, VOCs, PM2.5, and PM10 34 in exhaust emissions. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area 35 surrounding the construction site. Areas within 500 feet of CARB-defined sensitive land uses 36 would be designated as no‐idle areas where materials storage/transfer and equipment 37 maintenance activities are not permitted to occur.
38 SO2 is generated by oxidation during combustion of organic sulfur compounds contained in 39 diesel fuel. Off‐road diesel fuel meeting federal standards can contain up to 5,000 parts per 40 million (ppm) of sulfur, whereas on‐road diesel is restricted to less than 15 ppm of sulfur. 41 However, under California law and California Air Resources Board regulations, off‐road diesel 94 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-14 November 2019
1 fuel used in California must meet the same sulfur and other standards as on‐road diesel fuel; 2 therefore, SO2‐related issues due to diesel exhaust would be minimal. 3 Construction activities would take place over an approximately 18-month period, and 4 construction contractors would comply with CARB regulations and YSAQMD rules and BMPs 5 as identified above. No operational activities would involve emissions of criteria pollutants 6 beyond the activities taking place under existing conditions. Therefore, the Proposed Project 7 would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to emission of criteria pollutants. The 8 impact would be less than significant.
9 c. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations 10 (Less than Significant)
11 During project construction activities, diesel particulate matter (DPM) and gasoline fuel 12 combustion emissions that are classified as TACs could be emitted from construction 13 equipment. As described in Section 3.9, “Hazards and Hazardous Materials,” petroleum14 contaminated soils were identified in one of the geotechnical borings at approximately 11.5 15 feet depth (Youngdahl 2018). These TACs could be emitted during excavation and hauling 16 work, if not properly handled. Due to the variable nature of excavation activity in any specific 17 location, however, the generation of and/or exposure to TAC emissions would be temporary, 18 especially considering the short amount of time such equipment is typically operating within 19 an influential distance that would result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial 20 concentrations.
21 Potential toxic emissions from contaminated soil would be minimized through compliance 22 with the rules, regulations, and guidelines identified above and in Section 3.9, “Hazards and 23 Hazardous Materials.” These practices would ensure that the amount of construction 24 emissions would be controlled to the extent feasible through a combination of newer 25 equipment, alternative fuel-powered equipment, after-market emission control equipment, 26 equipment maintenance, and work practices to minimize engine use. 27 Implementing these practices would ensure that health effects from the Proposed Project are 28 minimized for nearby sensitive receptors. The Proposed Project’s effect on nearby sensitive 29 receptors due to construction-related air pollutant emissions would be less than significant. 30 d. Result in other emissions affecting a substantial number of people 31 (Less than Significant)
32 Diesel exhaust from excavation activities and backup generators may generate temporary 33 odors while the project is underway. Once activities are completed, these odors would cease. 34 The Proposed Project would involve removing some sanitary sewer pipelines, asphalt, 35 concrete, and possibly contaminated soil, which may produce additional objectionable odors. 36 The intensity of the odor perceived by a receptor depends on the distance of the receptor 37 from the excavation area and the amount and quality of the exposed material. Excavation and 38 removal work would be temporary at any given location, and the nearest sensitive receptors 39 would be at least 25 feet from the location of pipeline excavation. Impacts related to potential 40 generation of other emissions are thus expected to be temporary and less than significant. 95 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-15 November 2019
1 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)?
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the CDFW or
USFWS?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state HCP?
2 Discussion
3 West Coast Arborists conducted a tree inventory on December 12, 2018, to identify trees 4 within the project area that could potentially be affected by project activities (West Coast 5 Arborists 2018, provided as Appendix A of this IS/MND). In March 2019, the City Capital 96 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-16 November 2019
1 Works & Transportation Department surveyor identified additional trees that could also be 2 potentially be affected. A reconnaissance-level biological site assessment was conducted by a 3 Horizon biologist on March 19, 2019. The purpose of the assessment was to characterize 4 existing conditions and assess the project area’s potential to support special-status species. 5 The impact analysis was based on the results of the arborist inventory, reconnaissance-level 6 survey, and information about construction activity detailed in the Chapter 2, Project 7 Description.
8 The Proposed Project is located within a residential neighborhood in West Sacramento. The 9 project area is bounded by Jefferson Boulevard to the east/northeast, Park Boulevard to the 10 west, and Stone Boulevard to the south. Several park/open space areas are present within 11 the project area: Memorial Park is located in the middle southern portion of the project area. 12 Sam Combs Park is located directly south of the project area’s southeastern most boundary. 13 Circle Park is a small open space area on Circle Street. Project activities (replacement of water 14 and sewer mains, sewer lining, and curb/gutter/pavement rehabilitation) would take place 15 within the paved streets. Vegetation within the project area boundary consists mostly of 16 ruderal or disturbed areas and landscaped yards. A small area located in the southwestern 17 most section of the project area contains annual grasslands; this area is undeveloped but is 18 proposed for development in the City of West Sacramento General Plan (City of West 19 Sacramento 2016). There are no natural communities or aquatic features within the project 20 area. The topography is flat, with an elevation range of approximately 10-15 feet above mean 21 sea level.
22 a. Substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat 23 modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or 24 special-status species (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 25 The potential for special-status plant and wildlife species to occur within or near the project 26 area was evaluated by determining which special-status species occurred in the vicinity of 27 the project area through biological information databases and resources. This information is 28 provided in Appendix B, Biological Resources Information. 29 Special-status species included those listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or proposed for 30 listing by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife 31 (CDFW). California Native Plant Society (CNPS) plant lists were also reviewed. The following 32 sources were reviewed to determine which special-status plant, wildlife, and fish species 33 have been documented to occur in the vicinity of the project site:
34 ▪ USFWS list of federally listed endangered and threatened species that occur within 35 the vicinity of the proposed project (Appendix B) (USFWS 2019a); 36 ▪ California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) queries for the U.S. Geological Survey 37 (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle containing the project area and the quadrangles 38 immediately adjacent to it: Davis, Sacramento West, Sacramento East, Grays Bend, 39 Taylor Monument, Rio Linda, Saxon, Clarksburg, and Florin (Appendix B) (CDFW 40 2019);
41 ▪ California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS’s) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of 42 California (CNPS 2019) and California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) listing (Appendix B) 43 (CNPS 2019);
97 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-17 November 2019
1 ▪ USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2019b)
2 ▪ National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 2019c)
3 ▪ EcoAtlas (California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup 2019) 4 ▪ Western Bat Species Regional Priority Matrix (Western Bat Working Group 2013) 5 The Yolo Habitat Conservancy is a joint powers agency comprising the County of Yolo 6 (County) and the cities of Davis, West Sacramento, Winters, and Woodland, along with the 7 University of California, Davis, as an ex-officio member of the Board of Directors (Yolo Habitat 8 Conservancy 2019). The Yolo Habitat Conservancy has prepared the Yolo Habitat 9 Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP), a model 10 conservation plan to provide Endangered Species Act permits and associated mitigation for 11 infrastructure (e.g., roads, bridges, and levees) and development activities (e.g., agricultural 12 facilities, housing, commercial buildings) taking place over the next 50 years in Yolo County. 13 The HCP/NCCP was completed in 2018 and implementation began in January 2019. The Yolo 14 HCP/NCCP coordinates mitigation to maximize benefits to 12 identified sensitive species, as 15 well as conserve 8,000 acres of additional habitat conservation beyond mitigation. 16 Special-status Plant Species
17 Based on searches of the CNDDB, USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation Report 18 (IPaC), and CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, 26 sensitive plant species and 19 four natural communities were identified as historically occurring within 5 miles of the 20 project area or having potential to occur in the project vicinity (CDFW 2019; USFWS 2019a, 21 2019b; CNPS 2019). Figure 3-1 shows sensitive plant species that currently or historically 22 occur within 5 miles of the project area. None of these plant species or natural communities 23 have potential to occur in the project area due to the lack of suitable habitat (Appendix B, 24 Table B-1). The project area is not within an area designated as critical habitat for any plant 25 species (Figure 3-2).
26 No special-status plant species were observed during the reconnaissance-level site visit; 27 however, a protocol-level plant survey was not conducted. The project area occurs mostly 28 within a residential neighborhood that lacks native vegetation communities. Vegetation 29 within the project area consisted of mostly ruderal/disturbed vegetation and landscaped 30 yards; vegetation in the southwestern portion of the project area was undeveloped non31 native annual grassland. Some of the non-native species observed around the project area 32 included foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), 33 Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae), common stork’s bill (Erodium cicutarium), and 34 henbit dead-nettle (Lamium amplexicaule).
35 Because the project area occurs mostly within a developed neighborhood, it would not 36 support suitable habitat for special-status plant species. The southwestern section of the 37 project area contains non-native annual grassland; this area has been highly disturbed and 38 would also not support suitable habitat for special-status plants. Therefore, no impacts to 39 special-status plants would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. 40 Special-status Wildlife Species
41 Fifty special-status wildlife species (nine invertebrates, two amphibians, two reptiles, seven 42 fish species, 25 birds, and five mammals) were identified in database searches associated 43 with the Proposed Project (CDFW 2019;USFWS 2019a) or have been identified as historically 98 City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-18 November 2019
1 occurring within 5 miles of the project site (Figure 3-3). These species are documented in 2 Appendix B, Table B-1, including their potential for occurrence within the project area. Of 3 these, 10 wildlife species have potential to occur within the project area due to the presence 4 of suitable or marginally suitable habitat. No special-status wildlife species were observed 5 during the biological reconnaissance survey; however, no focused or protocol-level wildlife 6 surveys were conducted. Other wildlife species that were observed during the survey 7 included yellow-billed magpie (Pica nutalli), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), 8 California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), house 9 finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American robin 10 (Turdus migratorius), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum), 11 red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), domestic cat (Felis catus), and California ground 12 squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi). The project site is not within an area designated as 13 critical habitat for any wildlife species (Figure 3-2). 14 Special-status Invertebrates
15 Of the nine special-status species identified through the database searches as having 16 potential to occur within the project area, suitable habitat exists for only one species: the 17 western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) (see Appendix B). The western bumble bee is 18 found within a variety of habitats, including urban parks and open grassy areas, and could 19 utilize tree cavities or rodent burrows within the project area for nesting. The western 20 bumble bee could also forage in landscaped yards and other vegetation within the project 21 area. The only CNDDB database record for this species within the project vicinity indicates 22 that it was observed west of the project area near Davis. This species is being monitored on 23 the CNDDB due to a decline in numbers and distribution; however, the species does not have 24 legal protection status under the California or federal Endangered Species Act. The Proposed 25 Project would have no impact on special-status invertebrates. 26 One species, the Antioch multilid wasp (Myrmosula pacifica), appeared in the CNDDB 27 database search but is not included in Appendix B. No information is available regarding this 28 species’ occurrences or habitat requirements, and therefore it is not discussed further in this 29 document.
30 Special-status Amphibians and Reptiles
31 No suitable habitat exists within the project area for the two species of special-status 32 amphibians or two species of reptiles (Appendix B) that were identified through the database 33 searches as having potential to occur in the project area. The Proposed Project would have 34 no impact on special-status amphibian and reptile species. 35 Special-status Fish
36 No suitable aquatic habitat for the special-status fish species identified in the database 37 searches is present within the project area. The nearest aquatic habitat is located 38 approximately 260 feet south of the project area in the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship 39 Channel. At its closest, the project area boundary is approximately 1,100 feet east of the 40 Sacramento River. Both the Deep Water Ship Channel and the Sacramento River contain 41 suitable habitat for six of the seven fish species listed in Appendix B. The project area, 42 however, is separated from the Deep Water Ship Channel by a strip of land between two sets 99 ±
Figure 3-1.
CNDDB Occurrences of
Special-Status Plants within
5 Miles of the Proposed Project
Basemap Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
\\h2o-server\GIS_Server\_PROJECTS\19002_West_Sac_Streets\mxd\Fig_BIO-1_CNDDB_Plants.mxd 3/27/2019 PG Source: CDFW CNDDB, March 2019 update.
Project Area
5-mile buffer
Ferris' milk-vetch
Sanford's arrowhead
Suisun Marsh aster
woolly rose-mallow
Special-status Plant Species
State Streets
Infrastructure Projects
0 0.75 1.5
Miles
100
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-20 November 2019
1 This page intentionally left blank
101
Figure 3-2.
Critical Habitat within
5 Miles of the Proposed Project
Basemap Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
\\h2o-server\GIS_Server\_PROJECTS\19002_West_Sac_Streets\mxd\Fig_BIO-3_CNDDB_Habitat.mxd 7/8/2019 PG Source: USFWS 2019.
Project Area
5-mile buffer
Delta smelt
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Chinook salmon
Steelhead
Critical Habitat
State Streets
Infrastructure Projects
0 0.75 1.5
Miles
102
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-22 November 2019
1 This page intentionally left blank
103
Figure 3-3.
CNDDB Occurrences of Special-status Animals
within 5 Miles of the Proposed Project
Basemap Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
\\h2o-server\GIS_Server\_PROJECTS\19002_West_Sac_Streets\mxd\Fig_BIO-2_CNDDB_Animals.mxd 7/8/2019 PG Source: CDFW CNDDB, March 2019 update.
California black rail
Cooper's hawk
Sacramento Valley tiger beetle
Sacramento perch
Swainson's hawk
bank swallow
burrowing owl
chinook salmon - Central
Valley spring-run ESU
chinook salmon - Sacramento
River winter-run ESU
giant gartersnake
great blue heron
hoary bat
longfin smelt
purple martin
steelhead - Central Valley
DPS
tricolored blackbird
vernal pool fairy shrimp
white-tailed kite
Sacramento splittail
song sparrow ("Modesto"
population)
western yellow-billed cuckoo
valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
least Bell's vireo
Special-status Animal Species
Project Area
5-mile buffer
0 0.75 1.5
Miles
State Streets
Infrastructure Projects
104
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-24 November 2019
1 This page intentionally left blank
105
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-25 November 2019
1 of railroad tracks and a vegetated riparian bank, and is separated from the Sacramento River 2 by Jefferson Boulevard and industrial development. These waterways would not be affected 3 by project activities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on special-status 4 fish.
5 Special-status Birds
6 Many species of birds utilize the project area and surrounding areas to forage and/or nest. 7 The project area contains marginal to suitable habitat for eight of the 25 species of special8 status birds listed in Appendix B: Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), great egret (Ardea alba), 9 great blue heron (Ardea herodias), black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax), 10 Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), merlin (Falco 11 columbaris), and purple martin (Progne subis). Project construction activities would take 12 place within a developed residential neighborhood that contains many suitable nesting trees 13 and foraging habitat. Additionally, special-status birds and other birds protected under the 14 California Department of Fish and Game Code (F&G Code), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 15 (MBTA) could use nearby riparian, open space, and aquatic areas (e.g., Deep Water Ship 16 Channel and Sacramento River) for nesting and foraging. 17 Suitable nesting and foraging habitat exists within and near the project area for the Cooper’s 18 hawk. Cooper’s hawks could nest in trees within the project area and also prey upon the many 19 medium-sized birds that occur around and in the project area. The nearest CNDDB 20 occurrence records of Cooper’s hawks are approximately 2.7 miles and 4 miles northeast of 21 the project area.
22 Due to the constant human presence within the project area, it is not expected that the great 23 egret, great blue heron, and the black-crowned night heron would choose to establish nesting 24 rookeries in trees within the project area boundaries (Appendix B). These species are 25 typically sensitive to human disturbance and they would likely be deterred by the high level 26 of human presence within the project area. These species would not be expected to utilize the 27 project area for foraging as they forage in aquatic areas, and would be expected to be found 28 foraging near the Deep Water Ship Channel or Sacramento River located south and east of the 29 project area, respectively. No evidence of an established nesting rookery was observed in any 30 of the trees within the project area during the reconnaissance survey. No CNDDB occurrence 31 records of great egrets or black-crowned night herons exist within 5 miles of the project area; 32 however, one CNDDB occurrence of a great blue heron rookery has been documented 33 approximately 3 miles northeast of the project area. 34 Suitable nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawks exists within the southwestern portion of the 35 project area. This area contains disturbed annual grasslands and oak trees and is near the 36 riparian area near the Deep Water Ship Channel (Appendix B). Swainson’s hawks could utilize 37 the oak trees and riparian areas to nest or roost; however, due to the proximity of railroad 38 tracks directly south of the oak trees and the adjacent residences, it is expected that hawks 39 would choose to nest in the riparian area in preference to the project area. This species also 40 would not be expected to forage within the project area as Swainson’s hawks prefer more 41 open grasslands and agricultural fields in which to find prey. The nearest CNDDB occurrence 42 was reported approximately 0.5 mile east of the project area. The City of West Sacramento is 43 a participant in the Yolo HCP/NCCP, which covers impacts from infrastructure and 44 development activities on Swainson’s hawk.
106
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-26 November 2019
1 Suitable nesting habitat exists for white-tailed kite within the trees in the project area. White2 tailed kites would not be expected to forage within the residential neighborhood in the 3 project area as they prefer more open grasslands and meadows, such as the open fields 4 located southwest of the Deep Water Ship Channel. A 2017 CNDDB occurrence documented 5 a white-tailed kite nest in an oak tree in the backyard of a residence on the south side of 19th 6 Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and Alabama Avenue. The CNDDB record indicated that 7 a near-fledgling white-tailed kite was found deceased on the ground near the nest tree (CDFW 8 2019). The City of West Sacramento is a participant in the Yolo HCP/NCCP, which covers 9 impacts from infrastructure and development activities on white-tailed kite. 10 The project area provides a suitable prey base for the merlin due to the abundance of small 11 birds present; however, it is expected that this species would utilize the riparian area near 12 the Deep Water Ship Channel for foraging and roosting in preference to the project area as 13 this species prefers habitats near water. Merlin are a fairly uncommon visitor to California 14 and they do not nest in California. There are no CNDDB occurrences of merlin within 5 miles 15 of the project area.
16 Although it is not expected that purple martins would utilize the project area for nesting, they 17 could forage in the area. Purple martins are known to forage in a wide variety of habitats, 18 including over cities and parks. Numerous CNDDB occurrences report purple martins nesting 19 under long overpasses and elevated freeways in “weep holes” in Sacramento (CDFW 2019). 20 The nearest CNDDB occurrence was reported approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the 21 project area.
22 Most native migratory birds and active nest sites are protected under MBTA; active bird nests 23 are protected by F&G Code Section 3503; and raptor nests are protected under F&G Code 24 Section 3503.5. The various trees located within the project area have potential to be used by 25 nesting raptor species, such as Cooper’s hawk and white-tailed kite, as well as other nesting 26 birds, such as the American robin and house finch. As described in item 3.4(e) below, a review 27 of the project area by a City surveyor and the City arborist identified 79 trees within the 28 project area as having the potential to be removed, trimmed, or pruned as result of 29 construction activities (Appendix B). Most of these trees are anticipated to remain; however, 30 removal or disturbance of vegetation and trees within the project area could directly affect 31 foraging and nesting habitat for special-status birds and other birds protected under the 32 MBTA and F&G Code. Construction activities could also disturb breeding, nesting, and 33 foraging birds by generating noise and creating visual distractions that could affect nesting 34 birds within the project area and adjacent areas to the point of resulting in nest abandonment 35 and/or failure. Impacts on an active nest of a protected bird species during construction 36 would violate protections under MBTA and F&G Code, and such an impact would be 37 considered significant.
38 With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1a (Compliance with the 39 Requirements of the Yolo HCP/NCCP for Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite) and 40 BIO-1b (Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Birds and Implement Non41 disturbance Buffer Areas), the Proposed Project would avoid impacts on nesting birds by 42 identifying and avoiding disturbance to occupied nests. 107
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-27 November 2019
1 Mitigation Measure BIO-1a. Compliance with the Requirements of the Yolo 2 HCP/NCCP for Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite
3 The Yolo HCP/NCCP contains avoidance and minimization measures that the City of 4 West Sacramento shall adopt for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite. Specifically, 5 implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Measure 15 in the Yolo HCP/NCCP 6 will:
7 ▪ Identify and quantify (in acres) Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite habitat in 8 and within 1,320 feet of the project footprint, and identify suitable nest trees. 9 ▪ Avoid potential nesting trees, with 1,320-foot setbacks from the trees during 10 nesting, to the extent practicable.
11 ▪ During construction, if activities would occur within 1,320 feet of nesting habitat 12 between March 15 and August 30, preconstruction activities would be conducted 13 for active nests consistent with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory 14 Committee (2000). For operation and maintenance, if activities involve pruning 15 or removal of suitable nest trees, preconstruction activities will be conducted for 16 active nests, consistent with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee 17 (2000).
18 ▪ For construction activities occurring from March 15 to August 30, no activities 19 will occur within 1,320 feet of active nests, unless a qualified biologist has 20 determined that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active or the 21 Yolo Habitat Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFW agree to a lesser buffer distance. 22 For operations and maintenance, if occupied nest sites are present within 1,320 23 feet, tree pruning and removal will be deferred until the nest is no longer being 24 used by adults and young.
25 Mitigation Measure BIO-1b. Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting 26 Birds and Implement Non-disturbance Buffer Areas.
27 To the extent feasible, all vegetation removal shall occur between September 1 and 28 January 31, outside the bird/raptor nesting season, to avoid potential impacts on 29 nesting birds. If construction activities (including staging and tree or vegetation 30 removal) will occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), the 31 City shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct focused surveys for active 32 bird nests in project areas currently under construction and within a 250-foot buffer 33 no more than 7 days before initiation of construction activities. If no work occurs for 34 a period of 5 days during the nesting season, repeat surveys must be performed 35 before work within 250 feet of suitable nesting substrate is resumed. If the survey 36 indicates that no active nests are present, no further mitigation shall be required. 37 If an active bird or raptor nest is located during preconstruction surveys, a qualified 38 biologist shall establish appropriate species-specific non-disturbance buffer zones in 39 consultation with USFWS and/or CDFW (typical buffers are 250 feet for passerines 40 and 500 feet for raptors). No project-related activity shall commence within the non41 disturbance buffer until the qualified biologist confirms that the nest is no longer 42 active.
108
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-28 November 2019
1 Special-status Mammals and Bats
2 The American badger was identified in the CNDDB as having potential to occur in the vicinity 3 of the project area; however, this species would not be expected to occur within the project 4 area due a lack of suitable habitat. Three bat species were identified in the CNDDB: pallid bat 5 (Antrozous pallidus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and hoary bat (Lasiurus 6 cinereus). One species, western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii), was identified through personal 7 communication with bat biologist Kim Fettke (pers. comm., April 29, 2019). Appendix B, 8 Table B-1, discusses these four bat species and their potential to occur within the project area. 9 Additionally, there is potential for other California bat species to occur within the project 10 area. Currently, little is known about the range and distribution of California bat populations 11 and their migratory routes, so it is difficult to rule out any species until a habitat assessment 12 (see Mitigation Measure BIO-2b) is performed.
13 Most California bat species form nursery colonies in the summer that number from several 14 to hundreds of thousands of female bats and their young (Zeiner et al. 1988). Several of these 15 colonial species have also been documented coming together in hibernacula during the 16 winter (Weller et al. 2018). This colonial trait can make local populations of these species, 17 such as silver-haired bat, particularly vulnerable to roost removal or disturbance, especially 18 during these sensitive seasons. Removal of an occupied maternity roost (e.g., via tree felling) 19 could result in the fatality of an entire colony as bats retreat rather than flush from the roost. 20 Likewise, disturbance of an occupied maternity roost (e.g., via construction activities) could 21 result in the abandonment of an entire generation of nonvolant pups (pups that cannot fly). 22 Removal of an occupied hibernaculum could result in the fatality of an entire colony of 23 nonvolant bats in hibernation or torpor. Additionally, disturbance of an occupied 24 hibernaculum could arouse bats in hibernation or torpor during the winter, depleting their 25 energy reserves and potentially resulting in death.
26 Roosts can be an essential and limiting resource for colonial bat species. Colonial bats exhibit 27 high roost fidelity, using the same roosts for generations, and the parameters for suitable 28 roosting conditions (e.g., thermal stability) can be narrow. As such, colonial bat roosts are 29 considered a sensitive resource by CDFW.
30 Two generally-solitary foliage-roosting bat species are known to roost in the project study 31 area. The hoary bat typically roosts alone except during the maternity season when females 32 roost with their pups. Likewise, the western red bat typically roosts alone, but several females 33 and their young have been documented forming small maternity colonies. 34 No bats or their sign (e.g., guano) were observed within the project area during the 35 reconnaissance survey; however, a focused bat habitat assessment and focused bat surveys 36 have not been conducted in the project area for potential roosting habitat. As such, use of the 37 trees within the project area as roosting habitat cannot be ruled out. Construction activities 38 that could cause temporary disturbance or permanent removal of trees that are used by 39 colonial roosting bats, particularly maternity roosts or hibernacula, could result in mortality 40 or injury to a large number of bats. Such mortality and habitat loss could be a substantial 41 adverse effect and could cause a local bat population to drop below self-sustaining levels, 42 resulting in a significant impact. Temporary construction disturbance or permanent tree 43 removal during the maternity season could also impede the use of a native wildlife nursery, 44 causing bats that roost in small numbers to abandon their nonvolant pups, which would 45 result in a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2a (Remove or 109
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-29 November 2019
1 Disturb Trees Outside of the Maternity Season), Mitigation Measure BIO-2b (Conduct a 2 Habitat Assessment and Surveys for Bats), and if necessary, Mitigation Measures BIO-2c 3 (Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Bats Roosting in Structures), and Mitigation Measure 4 BIO-2d (Prepare Bat Roost Compensation Plan and Provide Replacement Roosts for 5 Roosts That Cannot Be Avoided) would reduce impacts on bats by identifying the location 6 of bat roosts and implementing measures to avoid and minimize disturbance to roosting bats. 7 Therefore, the impact of the Proposed Project on bats would be less than significant with 8 mitigation.
9 Mitigation Measure BIO-2a. Remove and Disturb Trees Outside of the Maternity 10 and Winter Seasons
11 To avoid disturbing or eliminating occupied maternity roosts or winter roosts, all tree 12 removal and pruning shall occur outside of the maternity season (May 1 – August 31) 13 and winter season (November 1 – March 1) to the extent feasible. 14 Mitigation Measure BIO-2b. Conduct a Habitat Assessment and Surveys for Bat 15 Roosts
16 Before the commencement of tree removal, a CDFW-approved biologist with 17 experience identifying bat roosts will conduct a daytime habitat suitability 18 assessment to determine if any of the trees in the project area that may be removed, 19 trimmed, or pruned contain potential colonial bat roosting (e.g., large tree cavities, 20 basal hollows, loose or peeling bark, larger snags, palm trees with intact thatch) or 21 indications of bat use (e.g., occupancy, guano, staining, smells, or sounds). Each tree 22 shall be rated on a scale of 1-3: 1 = unsuitable/low suitability; 2 = potentially suitable; 23 and, 3 = identifiable roost. If all trees within the project area are rated 1, no additional 24 measures will be taken. If any trees are rated 2, a CDFW-approved biologist with 25 experience surveying tree roosts shall conduct evening bat surveys at potential sites 26 to assess roosting patterns during the maternity season. Evening emergence surveys 27 will be conducted using night-vision technology and acoustic monitoring from one 28 half hour before sunset to at least 1 hour after sunset for a minimum of two nights. 29 The survey methodology will be submitted and approved by CDFW prior to the 30 survey. If the bat biologist determines that that any of the trees rated 2 are identifiable 31 roosts, their rating will be changed to 3. If any trees are rated 3, the City shall 32 implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c.
33 Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Bats and Bat Roosts 34 The City shall avoid removal and disturbance of all bat roosts within the project area 35 to the greatest extent feasible. If it is not possible to avoid the disturbance or removal 36 of all roosts, alternative impact minimization measures will be developed according 37 to specific site conditions and degree of impact (e.g., species, size of colony, season of 38 use). These measures may include roost exclusion prior to the sensitive seasons of 39 use, tiered tree pruning or removal under the supervision of a qualified biologist, and 40 compensatory roost replacement. A plan detailing the methods and specifications of 41 the minimization measures will be prepared by a qualified bat biologist and 42 submitted to CDFW for approval prior to implementation, and prior to the start of 43 tree removal or other construction disturbance.
110
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-30 November 2019
1 If roosts are identified that cannot be avoided or it is determined that construction 2 activities may cause roost abandonment, the City shall implement Mitigation Measure 3 BIO-2d.
4 Mitigation Measure BIO-2d. Prepare Bat Roost Compensation Plan and Provide 5 Replacements for Roosts That Cannot Be Avoided
6 If bat roosts cannot be avoided or if it is determined that construction activities may 7 cause roost abandonment, the City shall refrain from such activities until roost sites 8 have been replaced.
9 For replacement of roost sites established in the existing trees, the City shall retain a 10 qualified bat biologist to develop a Bat Roost Compensation Plan that addresses the 11 use of the trees, identifies appropriate compensation measures commensurate with 12 the size of the colony, and provides for no net loss in roosting areas for the bats. 13 Conclusion
14 As described above, the Proposed Project would have no impact on special-status plants, 15 natural communities, amphibians and reptiles, and fish. Impacts on invertebrates would be 16 less than significant. Impacts on nesting birds would be reduced to a less-than-significant 17 level with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, requiring the City to identify and 18 avoid direct and indirect impacts on occupied nests. Bats have the potential to be affected by 19 construction activities such as trimming or removal of trees in which they roost, causing roost 20 abandonment; Mitigation Measures BIO-2a, BIO-2b, BIO-2c, and BIO-2d provide a process for 21 the City to avoid, minimize, and compensate for any impacts on these species. Overall, the 22 impact on special-status species would be less than significant with mitigation. 23 b. Substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive 24 natural community (No Impact)
25 No riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities occur within the project area. Riparian 26 habitat does exist approximately 170 feet south of the project area boundary; however, the 27 project area is separated from the riparian habitat by two sets of railroad tracks and a strip 28 of land between the tracks. No impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural 29 communities would occur as part of the Proposed Project. 30 c. Substantial adverse effects on state or federally protected wetlands 31 (No Impact)
32 A search of the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2019c) and the California 33 EcoAtlas (California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup 2019) revealed no state or federally 34 protected wetlands within the project area, and no potential wetland features or waters of 35 the U.S. were observed within the project area during the March 19, 2019 site visit. The 36 nearest water features to the project area are the Deep Water Ship Channel, approximately 37 260 feet south of the project area, and the Sacramento River, approximately 1,100 feet to the 38 east. According to mapping from the California Aquatic Resources Inventory (San Francisco 39 Estuary Institute 2017) (depicted in Figure 3-4), the Deep Water Ship Channel is separated 40 from the project area by two sets of railroad tracks and a riparian habitat corridor and has 111
Figure 3-4.
Wetlands in the Vicinity
of the Proposed Project
Basemap Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin,
USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
\\h2o-server\GIS_Server\_PROJECTS\17010_CPUC_Estrella_Task_3_EIR\mxd\Bio\Fig_BIO-4_wetlands.mxd 7/8/2019 PG Project Area Depressional
Depressional Forested
Lacustrine Unnatural
Riverine
Riverine Unnatural
Wetland Type
State Streets
Infrastructure Projects
0 0.075 0.15
Miles
Source: SFEI 2017. California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI). 112
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-32 November 2019
1 This page intentionally left blank
113
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-33 November 2019
1 no identified wetland features. The Sacramento River is separated from the project area by 2 industrial development; several minor wetland features have been identified near the river. 3 Because of the distance and intervening features, it is unlikely that sediment or pollutant (e.g., 4 fuel, oil) runoff from construction-related ground disturbance and equipment operations 5 would reach the Deep Water Ship Channel or Sacramento River. Nevertheless, the City would 6 be required to comply with conditions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 7 System (NPDES) permitting process, including BMPs to avoid and minimize any impacts as a 8 result of sediment or pollutant runoff to jurisdictional waters. As discussed in Section 3.10, 9 “Hydrology and Water Quality,” the NPDES requires implementation of a stormwater 10 pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to prevent discharges of sediment and other 11 construction-related pollutants to surface waters. Because the Proposed Project does not 12 support any state or federally protected wetlands and no impact on the Deep Water Ship 13 Channel or Sacramento River would occur, the Proposed Project would result in no impact 14 on state or federally protected wetlands.
15 d. Substantial interference with wildlife movement, established wildlife 16 corridors, or the use of native wildlife nursery sites (Less than 17 Significant with Mitigation)
18 The project area is located within a residential neighborhood and is surrounded by developed 19 urban areas to the north, east, and west. The south side of the project area is bounded by two 20 sets of railroad tracks, a strip of riparian habitat, and the Deep Water Ship Channel. 21 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the 22 movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species because the project area 23 supports limited to no value as a wildlife movement corridor. The area does not provide an 24 important connection for any other special-status species or any areas of natural habitat that 25 would otherwise be isolated, nor does it occur along any established wildlife migration 26 routes. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not interfere with the movement of any native 27 or migratory wildlife species. The Sacramento River corridor, located approximately 1,100 28 feet to the east, and the Deep Water Ship Channel and established riparian habitat that 29 borders it, located approximately 160 feet to the south, are examples of migration corridors 30 within the vicinity of the project. Neither of these features would be affected by project 31 activities.
32 It is expected that many nesting birds use the trees within the project area for nesting. If birds 33 nest within the project area, the project area could be considered as a native wildlife nursery. 34 As discussed above Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that preconstruction surveys are 35 conducted for nesting birds and buffers are implemented, if necessary, to avoid or minimize 36 potential impacts on nesting birds. In addition, the trees within the project area may provide 37 nursery sites for bats. If bats use the trees within the project area to raise their young, the 38 project area could be considered a native wildlife nursery area for bats. As discussed in item 39 3.4(a) above, Mitigation Measures BIO-2a, BIO-2b, and BIO-2c would ensure that impacts on 40 special-status bats would be less than significant. Overall, the impact of the Proposed Project 41 on wildlife corridors and nurseries would be less than significant with mitigation. 114
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-34 November 2019
1 e. Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological 2 resources (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
3 The City of West Sacramento’s Tree Preservation Ordinance in Chapter 8.24 of the Municipal 4 Code regulates the removal and protection of heritage, landmark, native oak, and street trees 5 within the city on public and private property. On December 12, 2018, West Coast Arborists 6 identified, measured, and assessed the health of 68 trees identified by a City surveyor as 7 potentially being affected by construction activities within the project area. Eleven additional 8 trees were later added to the evaluation. A total of 21 species of trees were identified 9 (Appendix A, Arborist Report). Each tree was first identified to determine the species, and the 10 trunk diameter was measured 4.5 feet above grade (known as diameter at standard height, 11 or DSH). The vigor/ structural condition, crown spread, recommended maintenance, distance 12 to hardscape, presence of overhead utilities, location, and estimated height range of each tree 13 were also evaluated (Appendix A).
14 Of the 79 trees that were evaluated, the arborist report recommended that three London 15 Plane (Platanus X hispanica), one Box Elder (Acer negundo), and one Silver Maple (Acer 16 saccharinum) should be removed to grade level, regardless of whether they would be affected 17 by construction, because their close proximity to high voltage lines, poor crown structure, 18 and declining health posed a risk to public safety (Appendix A). Additionally, the arborist 19 recommended that greater-than-routine pruning should be conducted for one American 20 Sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua), one Chinese Hackberry (Celtis sinensis), one Modesto 21 Ash (Fraxinus velutina ‘Modesto’), one Siberian Elm (Ulmus pumila), and one Silver Maple 22 (Acer saccharinum) because their poor crown structure was causing hazardous conditions. 23 The remaining 64 trees were recommended for routine maintenance/grid trimming and did 24 not show any signs of significant structural defects or decline in vigor. No trees that were 25 evaluated within the project area meet the classification in the City’s Tree Preservation 26 Ordinance of a heritage, landmark, or native oak tree. Nevertheless, protection is still 27 warranted for street trees, defined in the ordinance as any tree growing or placed within the 28 tree maintenance strip or public right-of-way (within 12.5 feet of the curb or edge of the 29 paved portion of the street if the street does not have a curb). Where landscape strips are 30 7 feet wide or wider, any trees removed during construction would be replanted. 31 Because of the large number of trees in the State Streets neighborhood, construction activities 32 to replace water and sewer lines or retrofit curb, gutter, and street surface would likely affect 33 some street trees and landscaping trees. Under the Tree Preservation Ordinance, removal or 34 any activities (e.g., root trimming) that would interfere with or retard the natural growth of 35 street trees would be considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation 36 Measures BIO-3a (Minimize Potential Impacts on Trees) and BIO-3b (Replace Trees 37 That Are Removed) would ensure that conflicts with the City of West Sacramento’s Tree 38 Preservation Ordinance remain less than significant with mitigation. 39 Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Minimize Potential Impacts on Trees 40 Upon receiving and reviewing detailed specifications (site plans) for the Proposed 41 Project’s construction activities, the City shall provide plans to the arborist for review 42 to identify with more certainty the trees that are likely to be affected by construction. 43 During construction, the arborist will work on-site with City staff to identify which 44 trees will need to be removed or trimmed/pruned. Existing trees will be avoided and 45 retained where practicable, using techniques such as the following:
115
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-35 November 2019
1 ▪ Design sidewalks to meander around the existing trees. 2 ▪ Install water lines above or below tree roots to avoid the need to trim roots. 3 ▪ Because vertical placement of sewer lines is not flexible, rehabilitation of 4 sewer lines rather than replacements will be implemented when possible. 5 6 The City shall mitigate for trees that are removed by implementing Mitigation 7 Measure BIO-3b.
8 Mitigation Measure BIO 3b: Implement Mitigation for Removed Trees 9 All impacts on trees resulting from trimming, pruning, or removal due to construction 10 activities must be reviewed by a City Tree Administrator if the tree’s diameter at 11 breast height (dbh) is greater than 2 feet for non‐native oak and 16 inches for native 12 oak. If the City’s arborist indicates that a tree within the City right-of-way on private 13 property must be removed, the homeowner will be notified of the decision and may 14 choose to obtain a free replacement tree through the City Parks and Recreation 15 Department’s West Sacramento Tree Program (information is available at 16 www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/parks-recreation/ 17 trees).
18 The homeowner may choose from the City’s list of replacement trees: Emerald 19 Sunshine (Ulmus propinqua), Golden Rain (Koelreuteria paniculata), Trident maple 20 (Acer buergerianum), Texas red oak (Quercus buckleyi), Deodar cedar (Cedrus 21 deodara), or Cork Oak (Quercus suber). These trees have been selected because they 22 are drought resistant and utility-friendly (i.e., their height and branching structure 23 are not likely to interfere with power lines, and their root system is not likely to affect 24 underground pipelines or sidewalks).
25 Replacement trees will be planted by the City’s arborist in coordination with the 26 homeowner.
27 Trees will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio (i.e., one replacement tree for each tree removed). 28 Replacement trees will have a 24-inch-box tree to accelerate the processing of 29 achieving the size of the removed tree. If a 24-inch-box tree is not available, 15-gallon 30 trees will be used.
31 Where a street tree must be removed, the replacement tree will not be planted within 32 5 feet of any fire hydrant and will be placed 4 feet outside of any drainage, sewer, or 33 water easement and sidewalk, as determined by the City Capital Projects & 34 Transportation Department.
35 All removed trees will be chipped and used as mulch in city parks and/or made 36 available to residents at the City’s corporation yard at 1801 West Capitol Avenue. 37 As noted in Chapter 2, Project Description, the City has determined that, because of the 38 significance of trees as a key element of the neighborhood’s identity, this mitigation would be 39 applied to all trees that require removal, rather than only street trees. 116
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-36 November 2019
1 Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3a and BIO-3b would ensure that the Proposed 2 Project does not conflict with the City of West Sacramento’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. 3 The Proposed Project would not conflict with any other local policies and ordinances. Impacts 4 on protected trees within the project area would be less than significant with mitigation. 5 f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community 6 Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP 7 (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
8 The project is under the jurisdiction of the Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural 9 Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP). Two species (Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed 10 kite) covered in the HCP/NCCP have been identified in the CNDDB and USFWS database 11 searches as occurring within the vicinity of the project area. It is possible that both species 12 could utilize trees within the project area for nesting. Construction activities occurring within 13 the project area would be covered under the HCP/NCCP as defined in Section 3.5, “Covered 14 Activities Description,” of the HCP/NCCP. As described in item 3.4(a) above, Mitigation 15 Measure BIO-1a would ensure that the Proposed Project proceeds in accordance with 16 requirements of the Yolo HCP/NCCP. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant 17 with mitigation.
117
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-37 November 2019
1 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
2 3
4 The Proposed Project is located in the City of West Sacramento, in the States Streets 5 subdivision, which is one of the oldest developed neighborhoods in the city. As discussed 6 more thoroughly below, large valley oaks (Quercus lobata) growing in the area were retained 7 as part of the subdivision design. Many other trees were planted as the neighborhood was 8 developed since the late 1910s. These largely include London Plane trees (Platanus X 9 hispanica), but Deodar Cedar (Cedrus deodara), Silver Maple (Acer saccharinum), and 10 Modesto Ash (Fraxinus velutina “Modesto”) were among the varieties planted (West Coast 11 Arborists 2018). As a result, the project area contains a large number of mature trees that 12 provide a high canopy of vegetation over the neighborhood houses and streets. 13 Prehistory
14 The prehistory of the Central Valley of California is generally defined by the following periods, 15 which serve to identify changes in how the indigenous populations lived upon the landscape 16 and used the abundant resources of the region over the last 13,000 years. 17 ▪ Paleo-Indian Period (11,550 to 8550 B.C.)
18 ▪ Lower Archaic Period (8550 to 550 B.C.)
19 ▪ Middle Archaic Period/Windmiller Pattern (ca. 3000 B.C. to 500 B.C.) 20 ▪ Upper Archaic/Berkeley Pattern (ca. 500 B.C. to A.D. 500) 21 ▪ Emergent Period/Augustine Pattern (ca. A.D. 500 to A.D. 1880) 22 The Paleo-Indian Period was a time when the Central Valley was sparsely populated by 23 groups who were highly mobile, hunted large game, and frequented the shores of late 24 Pleistocene lakes and sloughs. By the Lower Archaic Period, seasonal plants had become 25 more important for subsistence, and populations tended to settle in places for longer periods 26 of time and in larger groups. Data from site CA-SAC-38, located within the project area of 118
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-38 November 2019
1 potential effect, indicate that people were living in the Sacramento area from the earliest 2 times within this period. As time progressed, populations grew denser and more sedentary, 3 tools became more diverse and complex, and social structure became more stratified. The 4 people living in the project area during the Emergent Period represent the tribes encountered 5 by the first colonists who arrived in the early to mid-1800s. 6 Ethnography
7 Ethnographic literature suggests that the west side of the Sacramento River was likely within 8 the ancestral territory of several tribal groups as it borders the Yolo Basin, a vast marshland 9 that was subject to annual flooding during the winter months and that often stayed at least 10 somewhat inundated for the remainder of the year. However, numerous sources indicate that 11 the territory was ethnographically in the southwest corner of Nisenan territory and that their 12 western neighbors, the Patwin, held lands west of the marshlands that bordered much of the 13 Sacramento River, and thus west of the project area (Bennyhoff 1977; Johnson 1978; Kroeber 14 1932; Wilson and Town 1978). It is likely, however, that the Patwin also accessed the 15 resources available in the Yolo Basin. Available sources (Bennyhoff 1977; Johnson 1978; 16 Kroeber 1932; Wilson and Town 1978) do not identify any recorded ethnographic villages 17 on the west side of the Sacramento River adjacent to the Project, though communities are 18 known to have been located on areas of high ground (natural levees) along the Sacramento 19 River.
20 History
21 The historic era (i.e., since Euro-American contact) in the project vicinity began when two 22 Spanish exploration groups travelled up the Sacramento Valley in the early 1800s. These 23 were the 1808 Moraga expedition and the 1821 Arguello expedition. The Spanish 24 explorations were closely followed by those of fur trappers and traders in the late 1820s and 25 early 1830s. The dire outcome of these expeditions led not only to a quick depletion of valued 26 fur animals in the Sacramento Valley, but also the introduction of malaria to the indigenous 27 population. By the summer of 1833, entire villages had been decimated by the disease (Kyle 28 et al. 2002).
29 Permanent colonists did not settle in the region until the Mexican Period, when large land 30 grants were bestowed upon trusted Mexican citizens, many of whom were Americans who 31 had converted to Catholicism and married the daughters of the Mexican nationals, or had 32 otherwise become Mexican citizens. John Sutter was among the first to receive a land grant 33 in the Sacramento Valley. He established a fort and trading post at the location of modern34 day Sacramento in 1841 and soon expanded his holdings north to the vicinity of Yuba City 35 and east into the Sierra Nevada. It was at his mill, located near Coloma, where gold was 36 initially discovered in California in the early months of 1848. The news spread quickly and 37 the famed Gold Rush began, bringing thousands of people to the Sacramento region ready to 38 make their fortunes.
39 The first known European to settle in the area of West Sacramento was Jon Lows de Swart 40 (or John Schwartz), a Flemish settler. Schwartz acquired a 13,000-acre land grant on the west 41 bank of the Sacramento River, naming it Nuevo Fladria. James McDowell bought 600 acres 42 from Schwartz in 1846, and the newly-widowed Margaret McDowell subdivided Washington 43 Township in 1850. The first bridge across the Sacramento River was built in 1858. 44 Washington quickly became the political center of Yolo County and served as county seat for 119
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-39 November 2019
1 the better part of its first decade. However, in 1862, the county seat was permanently moved 2 to Woodland due to consistent winter flooding on the west side of the Sacramento River. 3 Washington Township undertook a number of flood control and mitigation efforts, ranging 4 from raising the level of the streets and building levees, to keeping living quarters on the 5 second floor of houses (West Sacramento Historical Society 2004). 6 As steamship and other Sacramento River traffic increased in the 1850s, Washington 7 Township grew into a port town. In 1859, the California Steam Navigation Company 8 established a shipyard for riverboats in town; it quickly became a major local industry, and it 9 remained in operation for nearly a century. Washington Township also shipped fish, dairy, 10 and produce to Sacramento and San Francisco Bay Area markets, as well as profiting from 11 miners passing through. The township was divided for decades on the issue of incorporation; 12 repeated unsuccessful attempts were made to either incorporate (beginning in 1893) or 13 pursue annexation by Sacramento (beginning in 1861). The post office, established 1893, was 14 called Broderick because the name Washington was in use in Nevada County; while locals 15 initially resisted the name, they began to refer to the area as Broderick by the 1910s. The 16 population reached 1,000 by 1915 (Walters 1986:13-14, 19-20, 24; West Sacramento 17 Historical Society 1986:7).
18 San Francisco-based D.W. Hobson Company purchased land immediately north of Broderick 19 in 1910, and began to develop it as the community of Riverbank. The area was quickly 20 populated, primarily by Italian, Portuguese, Russian, and Japanese farmers. Residents began 21 to call Riverbank “Bryte” after the post office was established in 1915 and to discuss 22 incorporation in the 1920s, but as with Broderick, actual steps toward incorporation were 23 not made. The West Sacramento Land Company was formed in 1907 to develop the area 24 south of Broderick and Bryte by the capitalists who had started Pacific Gas and Electric 25 Company (PG&E), but the economic difficulties caused by flooding and the cost of reclaiming 26 the swampy land soon forced them to reorganize as the West Sacramento Company. The 27 company mapped out a plan for a “model city” under the name West Sacramento in 1913. 28 They hired San Francisco architects Lewis P. Hobart and Charles H. Cheney to lay out the new 29 city. Hobart & Cheney had studied architecture in Paris, and Cheney was to become a 30 pioneering advocate of city planning in the United States. They devised an ambitious plan for 31 West Sacramento modeled on Paris, with radial layout and grand boulevards. The plan could 32 not be realized until much of the land had been cleared, reclaimed, and freed from the danger 33 of flooding by levee construction. West Sacramento Company used engineering company 34 Haviland, Dozier, and Tibbets for the reclamation and levee work. By early 1913, the company 35 was advertising with claims that it had cleared hundreds of acres for farming, established a 36 nursery for boulevard and park plantings, and graded 30 miles of roadways. By 1917, the 37 reclamation work was complete, and the company was able to sell lots in West Sacramento, 38 although most land sold for farms rather than development of the grand city of the Hobart & 39 Cheney plan. Financial difficulties once again forced the company to reorganize in the 1920s 40 (Coast Banker 1913:262-263; Larkey and Walters 1987:64; Walters 1968:28-30). 41 The levees were completely stabilized in the 1920s, reducing the threat of flooding, and the 42 area remained agricultural, growing slowly for decades. Prohibition largely passed the area 43 by; with a thriving hop industry, too many people ignored the law for it to be enforceable, and 44 many sellers continued to advertise openly. Hollywood filmmakers began regularly using 45 Broderick as a filming location in the 1930s (Walters 1987: 28-30, 32). 120
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-40 November 2019
1 East Yolo’s population boomed following the end of World War II, growing from 5,185 in 2 1940 to 11,225 ten years later and 25,032 in 1960; much of the growth was focused in West 3 Sacramento. This growth was due in large part to the Sacramento-Yolo Port, an ambitious 4 undertaking approved in 1947 that required the construction of a thirty-foot-deep ship 5 channel and a sixty-acre deep water harbor and turning basin. Ground was broken in 1949, 6 and the port, delayed by the Korean War in the 1950s, opened to sea traffic in 1963. Costing 7 $55 million, the port generated 7,200 jobs and $135 million. East Yolo developed from an 8 agricultural area into a distribution hub and commercial and industrial center for the 9 Sacramento Valley. A new freeway through the area opened in 1954, increasing traffic across 10 the river. West Sacramento, Broderick, and Bryte also began to grow as bedroom 11 communities for Sacramento during this era. The farmland between Broderick and Bryte 12 filled in with development, and West Sacramento expanded southward. Southport, south of 13 the barge canal, was developed beginning in the late 1960s and officially designated as a town 14 in 1970 (Walters 1987: 35-38, 41).
15 Sidelined for decades, incorporation efforts began anew in the 1960s, but measures to 16 incorporate were defeated in the 1960s and 70s. It was not until 1986 that a measure to 17 incorporate passed; by this point, the East Yolo area had relied exclusively on county services 18 for more than a century. The City of West Sacramento incorporated in 1987, combining 19 Broderick, Bryte, West Sacramento, and Southport under one municipality. Growth slowed 20 after the postwar boom resulting from the port, but West Sacramento continued to gradually 21 develop as a smaller bedroom community just across the river from the city of Sacramento, 22 and the population reached 34,000 by 2004. After decades of little change, West Sacramento’s 23 population began to expand quickly in the 21st century, and the population was 48,744 by 24 2010 (United States Census Bureau 2010; Walters 1987: 46; West Sacramento Historical 25 Society 1986:7).
26 State Streets Subdivision
27 As noted above, the State Streets neighborhood (officially West Sacramento City Unit one and 28 Two subdivision) was designed by San Francisco architects Hobart and Cheney. The two 29 “proposed a city which combined elements of English Garden suburbs, Parisian street plans 30 and classical imagery…” that was “arranged in a modified grid plan including curving streets, 31 diagonal streets across the grid, and adjacent grids laid out on different axes” (Corbett 32 1993a). The West Sacramento Company hired engineers Haviland, Dozier & Tibbetts to 33 implement the plan “by laying out the streets, building rose-colored sidewalks, curbs and 34 gutters, and planting street trees” (Corbett 1993a). According to Corbett (1993a), “[r]ows of ash trees on Circle (1913) and Jefferson north of 15th 35 (1941), and two sycamores at Jefferson 36 and Webster (1941) are prominent surviving street trees.” 37 The first model homes were built in 1913, but development was slow and by 1916 only 38 fourteen houses had been constructed; by the 1930s there were only a few dozen homes. The 39 northern portion of the subdivision was resurveyed in 1941 to simplify the street plan and 40 reduce lot size. After World War II, housing in the area boomed, along with a population to 41 match, and the subdivision reached full build out (Corbett 1993a). 42 Cultural Resources Studies
43 Cultural resources include prehistoric archaeological sites; historic-era archaeological sites; 44 traditional cultural properties; tribal cultural resources (TCRs); and historic buildings, 121
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-41 November 2019
1 structures, landscapes, districts, and linear features. TCRs are addressed in Section 3.17 of 2 this IS/MND.
3 Archival Search
4 A record search was conducted by Horizon cultural resources staff at the Northwest 5 Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at 6 Sonoma State University on January 24, 2019. The purpose of the record search was to 7 identify the presence of any previously recorded cultural resources within the project site, as 8 well as within a ¼-mile buffer, and to determine whether any portions of the project site had 9 been surveyed for cultural resources. The record search indicated that ten cultural resources, 10 including the State Streets neighborhood had been recorded within the project limits, and 11 another three resources were recorded within the ¼-mile buffer. All of the resources are of 12 the built environment, or are heritage oak trees (see Table 3-2). One of the resources (P-57- 13 000742), a Craftsman Bungalow built in 1913 at 10 Alameda Boulevard, has been 14 recommended as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 15 (Corbett 1993b). The house appears eligible for listing under Criterion A because “it is the 16 best surviving example of an original town lot development in West Sacramento City Unit 17 One, and is associated with the initial establishment of the new town. It includes an example 18 of one of the five model house types…” (Corbett 1993b). 19 Table 3-2. NWIC Records Search Results – Previously Recorded Resources NWIC No. Date (Author) Resource Name or Location (Date
Constructed)
Within Project
Site or Buffer
P-57-000195 Numerous
recordations
Sacramento Northern/Yolo Shortline
Railroad (1912)
Buffer
P-57-000564 2007 (A. Tomes,
EDAW, Inc.)
West Sacramento Wastewater Treatment
Plant (ca. 1955)
Buffer
P-57-000702
2013 (Maria Leon, City
of West Sacramento,
Real Estate Project
Specialist)
1628 Virginia Avenue (1935)
Project Site
P-57-000739
1993 (Michael R.
Corbett, Dames &
Moore, Inc.)
West Sacramento City State Streets
Subdivision Plan (1913-1950s)
Project Site
P-57-000740
1993 (Michael R.
Corbett, Dames &
Moore, Inc.)
1536 Jefferson Boulevard (1930)
Project Site
P-57-000742
1993 (Michael R.
Corbett, Dames &
Moore, Inc.)
10 Alameda Boulevard (1913)
Project Site
P-57-000743
1993 (Michael R.
Corbett, Dames &
Moore, Inc.)
Picturesque Oaks
Project Site
P-57-000744 1993 (Michael R.
Corbett, Dames &
1531 Virginia Avenue (1945) Project Site
122
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-42 November 2019
NWIC No. Date (Author) Resource Name or Location (Date
Constructed)
Within Project
Site or Buffer
Moore, Inc.)
P-57-000745
1993 (Michael R.
Corbett, Dames &
Moore, Inc.)
1527 Virginia Avenue (1939)
Project Site
P-57-000746
1993 (Michael R.
Corbett, Dames &
Moore, Inc.)
1521 Virginia Avenue (1915)
Project Site
P-57-000747
1993 (Michael R.
Corbett, Dames &
Moore, Inc.)
Picturesque Oak; SW Cor of Jefferson Blvd
& Circle St
Project Site
P-57-000748
1993 (Michael R.
Corbett, Dames &
Moore, Inc.)
Picturesque Oak; SE Cor of 15th St &
Virginia Ave
Project Site
P-57-000749
1993 (Michael R.
Corbett, Dames &
Moore, Inc.)
Pop's Drive-In; Whitey's Jolly Kone (1960)
Project Site
P-57-000750
1993 (Michael R.
Corbett, Dames &
Moore, Inc.)
Picturesque Oaks
Buffer
1 2 The record search determined that one cultural resources survey, for the parcel at 1628 3 Virginia Avenue, had previously been conducted in the project area, and another 16 studies 4 had occurred within the ¼-mile record search area, some of which were along Jefferson 5 Boulevard. In addition, the project area is within the boundaries of 11 large archaeological or 6 ethnographic overviews, or other regional studies.
7 The archival search also included a review of historic U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maps, 8 including the Davisville (USGS 1907) topographic quadrangle and the Lovdal (USGS 1916) 9 topographic quadrangle. The 1907 map shows one building existed at the north end of the 10 project area at that time. By 1916, the Sacramento Northern Railroad and a portion of what 11 was to become Jefferson Boulevard were both present, along with several isolated structures 12 within the future State Streets neighborhood. These early maps also show that the project 13 area had some elevation (ca. 19 to 29 feet above mean sea level), relative to the swampy 14 ground to the south and west, and adjacent to the Sacramento River. The West Sacramento 15 topographic quadrangle from 1948 (USGS 1948), which is the next quadrangle available after 16 the 1916 map, shows the area developed with the State Streets neighborhood. 17 Soils within the project limits largely consist of Lang sandy loam, though the northeast corner 18 of the area is classified as Lang sandy loam deep (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 19 2019). These are deep Holocene alluvial deposits that are identified as being rarely flooded. 123
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-43 November 2019
1 Native American Consultation
2 An email request was made to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 3 17, 2019 to review its files for the presence of recorded sacred sites on the project site. The 4 NAHC responded on January 25, 2019, stating that significant resources are located in the 5 vicinity of the Project area as a result of a search of their files. The NAHC also provided a list 6 of three tribes with a traditional and cultural affiliation with the project area for notification 7 pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1 (AB 52). Consultation with tribes is described in Section 8 3.17, “Tribal Cultural Resources.” The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation and the United Auburn 9 Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria (UAIC) both expressed concerns about the 10 potential for buried Native American sites within the Project vicinity. 11 Archaeological Resources
12 No archaeological survey was conducted for the purposes of the Proposed Project since the 13 entire project footprint consists of paved streets and the ground surface is not visible. The 14 record search, furthermore, did not identify previously recorded archaeological resources 15 within or near the Proposed Projects. The lack of known archaeological resources, or ground 16 surface visibility, does not preclude the possibility of buried archaeological resources within 17 the Project footprint, as discussed below in Section 3.5.3. 18 Built Environment Resources
19 As discussed in Section 3.5.2, the State Streets neighborhood is one of the oldest in West 20 Sacramento. The earliest homes in the neighborhood date to 1913, when the original model 21 homes were constructed, but a majority of the houses are post-World War II. A windshield 22 survey of the project area indicates that most, if not all, of the homes have reached 50 years 23 of age and are, therefore, old enough to be considered for listing in the California Register of 24 Historical Resources (CRHR) or NRHP. However, an evaluation of each property within the 25 project area is far beyond the scope of the current project, given that the proposed work will 26 not directly impact any of the existing structures, and will either replace facilities in kind or 27 install new but similar facilities adjacent to existing water lines. 28 That being said, the record search revealed that seven buildings (six of which are houses) 29 within or adjacent to the project limits have previously been recorded, and six of the seven structures have been evaluated for NRHP1 30 listing. Only one of the six evaluated structures 31 was recommended eligible for the NRHP, while all of the remaining buildings were 32 determined to have undergone too many modifications or were not architecturally significant 33 enough to be considered eligible. The single resource considered eligible (P-57-000742), 34 located at 10 Alameda Boulevard, is one of the original model homes for the subdivision, and 35 is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for being associated with events that 36 have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history (Corbett 1993b). 1 The eligibility criteria for the NRHP and the CRHR are virtually identical. Although the resources recorded in 1993 were evaluated only for the NRHP, it is assumed that their eligibility determinations would be the same with regard to the CRHR.
Furthermore, resources determined eligible for listing on the NRHP, are automatically included in the CRHR. 124
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-44 November 2019
1 This resource is outside the boundaries of the project area, which end at Alameda Boulevard 2 and Alabama Avenue.
3 The States Streets subdivision (P-57-000739) was also evaluated for NRHP listing, but was 4 determined to not meet the eligibility criteria (Corbett 1993a). According to Corbett (1993a), 5 the resource “has lost integrity through elimination of small lots, replotting of streets in a 6 substantial area, and numerous other changes which were critical to its potential 7 significance.”
8 a. Adverse change in the significance of a historical resource (Less than 9 Significant)
10 Historical resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, are resources that 11 are listed on or eligible for listing on the CRHR. The house at 10 Alameda Boulevard (P-57- 12 000742) was evaluated as eligible for listing in the NRHP and it is, therefore, assumed eligible 13 for listing on the CRHR; however, that structure is not within the project area and would not 14 be affected by project activities. Other individual structures within the States Streets 15 subdivision, as well as the subdivision itself, were assessed for NRHP eligibility and found not 16 eligible for listing.
17 A significant adverse change to a historical resource is defined under PRC 915064.5(b)(1) as 18 the “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its 19 immediate surroundings such that the significance … would be materially impaired.” The 20 proposed projects would not affect the area beyond Alameda Boulevard and Alabama 21 Avenue, and therefore would not directly affect those characteristics of the property at 10 22 Alameda Boulevard that contribute to its NRHP/CRHR eligibility. The replacement of the 23 water main within Alameda Boulevard will be adjacent to the existing water main and will 24 not encroach on the parcel that contains the historic property. It is likely that water line 25 repairs or replacement have occurred at some time since the structure was built in 1913, so 26 the scheduled activity will not be anything different than what has previously occurred. 27 Furthermore, none of the activities that could require removal of trees would take place at 28 the location of 10 Alameda Boulevard, so the setting of the parcel would not be affected, and 29 the sewer main project area does not include Alameda Boulevard. As a result, the proposed 30 projects would have less than significant impacts on the significance of historical resources 31 within or adjacent to the project site, including the house at 10 Alameda Boulevard. 32 Historical resources that are archaeological in nature may be accidentally discovered during 33 project construction; archaeological resources are discussed further in item (b) below. 34 b. Adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource (Less 35 than Significant with Mitigation)
36 No archaeological resources, as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, were 37 identified within the project area during archival research and archaeological surveys were 38 not undertaken due to the fact that the project area is comprised of paved city streets. 39 However, archaeological resources in the region are known to exist under city streets and/or 40 under many feet of alluvial soils. A Native American cemetery was found during construction 41 of a new West Sacramento subdivision (Sacramento Bee 2015, 2018), less than 1.5 miles 42 south of the current project area, and buried archaeological resources have been uncovered 125
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-45 November 2019
1 in other areas of the City. Similarly, a Native American village site was found buried under 10 2 feet of alluvium during construction of the new Sacramento County Administration building 3 in Sacramento (Tremaine 2008). In addition, both a Native American village and a Gold Rush 4 era encampment were uncovered at 3 and 5 feet, respectively, during construction of the 5 Light Rail Train in downtown Sacramento (Tremaine and Ferris 2009). These discoveries are 6 indicative of the potential for uncovering buried cultural resources during project 7 construction, even though the area has previously been disturbed by the installation and 8 maintenance or upgrading of sewer and water infrastructure elements over the decades. This 9 is particularly applicable to the installation of the water mains, which will be placed adjacent 10 to the existing lines, and will require new excavations to depths of 5 feet. The placement of 11 fire hydrants at new locations, could similarly impact buried cultural resources. Although any 12 excavations for the sewer main would be in areas previously disturbed by sewer line 13 installation, cultural resources could still be identified. 14 Though archaeological remains have not previously been reported in the project area, project 15 excavation activities could uncover buried archaeological materials. Prehistoric materials 16 most likely would include obsidian and chert flaked stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, 17 and choppers), tool-making debris, or milling equipment such as mortars and pestles. 18 Historic-era materials that might be uncovered would likely be related to the agricultural 19 activities in the project area prior to construction of the subdivision. Such items might include 20 square cut or wire nails, tin cans, metal equipment parts, or other items related to operating 21 an agricultural field.
22 If archaeological remains are accidentally discovered that are determined eligible for listing 23 in the CRHR or determined to be a TCR, and Proposed Project activities would affect them in 24 a way that would render them ineligible for such listing, a significant impact would result. 25 Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 (Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness 26 Training) and Mitigation CR-2 (Immediately Halt Construction if Cultural Resources 27 Are Discovered, Evaluate All Identified Cultural Resources for Eligibility for Inclusion 28 in the CRHR, and Implement Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Eligible Resources) 29 would ensure that impacts on CRHR-eligible archaeological sites accidentally uncovered 30 during construction are reduced to a less-than-significant level by immediately halting work 31 if materials are discovered, evaluating the finds for CRHR eligibility, and implementing 32 appropriate mitigation measures, as necessary. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 33 would reduce impacts related to accidental discovery of archaeological resources to a level 34 that is less than significant with mitigation.
35 Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training 36 A cultural resources awareness training program will be provided to all construction 37 personnel active on the Project site during earth moving activities. The training will 38 be provided prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. The training will be 39 developed and conducted in coordination with a qualified archaeologist meeting the 40 U.S. Secretary of Interior professional standards in archaeology, as defined in 48 Code 41 of Federal Register Parts 44720–44723, and a Native American tribe, who has 42 participated in consultations with the City, will be invited to participate in the 43 training. The program will include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural 44 resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and 45 consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The worker cultural resources 46 awareness program will also describe appropriate avoidance and minimization 126
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-46 November 2019
1 measures for resources that have the potential to be located on the Project site and 2 will outline what to do and whom to contact if any potential archaeological resources 3 or artifacts are encountered. The program will also underscore the requirement for 4 confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any finds of significance to 5 Native Americans, consistent with Native American tribal values. 6 The Yocha Dehe will also be invited to participate in the Project preconstruction 7 meeting, and the tribe will be kept aware of the Project construction schedule. 8 Mitigation Measure CR-2: Immediately Halt Construction if Cultural 9 Resources Are Discovered, Evaluate All Identified Cultural Resources for 10 Eligibility for Inclusion in the CRHR, and Implement Appropriate Mitigation 11 Measures for Eligible Resources.
12 Construction monitoring of ground disturbing activities by archaeological or Native 13 American monitors is not currently planned by the City. However, tribal 14 representatives from a local traditionally and culturally affiliated tribe are invited to 15 visit the construction site at any time to observe construction excavation, as long as 16 the City project manager is notified in advance.
17 If evidence of any subsurface archaeological features or deposits are discovered 18 during construction-related earth-moving activities, such as structural features, bone 19 or shell fragments, flaked or ground stone artifacts, historic-era artifacts, or 20 architectural remains, are encountered during any project construction activities, 21 work shall be suspended immediately at the location of the find and within a radius 22 of at least 50 feet and the City will be contacted. The City will then contact a qualified 23 archaeologist who meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s professional standards and 24 a Native American representative from a traditionally and culturally affiliated tribe, 25 as appropriate (i.e., a Native American site rather than a historic era site), to assess 26 the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and 27 treatment as necessary.
28 All cultural resources accidentally uncovered during construction within the project 29 site shall be evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR. Resource evaluations 30 will be conducted by individuals who meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s 31 professional standards in archaeology. If any of the resources meet the eligibility 32 criteria identified in PRC Section 5024.1 or CEQA Section 21083.2(g), mitigation 33 measures will be developed and implemented in accordance with CEQA Guidelines 34 Section 15126.4(b) before construction resumes.
35 For resources eligible for listing in the CRHR that would be rendered ineligible by the 36 effects of project construction, additional mitigation measures will be implemented. 37 Mitigation measures for archaeological resource, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines 38 Section 15126.4(b), may include (but are not limited to) avoidance; incorporation of 39 sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; capping the site; deeding the site 40 into a permanent conservation easement; or data recovery excavation. Mitigation 41 measures for archaeological resources shall be developed in consultation with 42 responsible agencies and, as appropriate, interested parties such as Native American 43 tribes. Native American consultation is required if an archaeological site is 44 determined to be a TCR. Implementation of the approved mitigation would be 127
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-47 November 2019
1 required before resuming any construction activities with potential to affect 2 identified eligible resources at the site.
3 c. Disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside of 4 formal cemeteries (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 5 No evidence of human remains was observed within the project site. Even so, there is the 6 possibility that project-related construction may affect human remains. Should any such 7 remains be discovered during construction, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 8 requires that work immediately stop within the vicinity of the finds and that the County 9 coroner be notified to assess the finds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3 10 (Immediately Halt Construction if Human Remains Are Discovered and Implement 11 Applicable Provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5) would 12 ensure that the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human 13 remains uncovered during the course of construction by requiring that, if human remains are 14 uncovered, work must be halted and the Yolo County coroner must be contacted. Adherence 15 to these procedures and provisions of the California Health and Safety Code would reduce 16 potential impacts on human remains to less than significant with mitigation. 17 Mitigation Measure CR-3: Immediately Halt Construction if Human Remains 18 Are Discovered and Implement Applicable Provisions of California Health and 19 Safety Code Section 7050.5.
20 If human remains are discovered during the Proposed Project’s construction activities, 21 the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. 22 Potentially damaging excavation shall halt on the Project site within a minimum radius 23 of 100 feet of the remains, and the County coroner shall be notified, as well as the City’s 24 project manager. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains 25 within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (California 26 Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains 27 are those of a Native American, he or she must contact NAHC by phone within 24 hours 28 of making that determination (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]). 29 Pursuant to the provisions of PRC Section 5097.98, NAHC shall identify a Most Likely 30 Descendent (MLD). The MLD designated by NAHC shall have at least 48 hours to inspect 31 the site and propose treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave 32 goods. The State shall work with the MLD to ensure that the remains are removed to a 33 protected location and treated with dignity and respect. Native American human remains 34 may also be determined to be tribal cultural resources. The Yolo County coroner will 35 determine the treatment of human remains that are not of Native American origin. Such 36 treatment may include archaeological excavation.
128
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-48 November 2019
1 3.6 ENERGY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant
environmental impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan
for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
2 3
4 a. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, 5 inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources (No 6 Impact)
7 The Proposed Project would involve upgrading water and sanitary sewer infrastructure, 8 rehabilitating water and sewer mains, and repairing and/or replacing curbs, gutters, 9 sidewalks, and retrofits required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 10 and replace deficient and failed street sections. Project-related construction activities would 11 comply with City and state requirements for control of air pollutant emissions and reduction 12 of greenhouse gas emissions. Operation of the Proposed Project would not involve additional 13 consumption of energy resources beyond existing conditions. Therefore, the Proposed 14 Project would have no impact on energy resources.
15 b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or 16 energy efficiency (No Impact)
17 As stated in item (a) above, project-related construction activities would comply with City 18 and state requirements for control of air pollutant emissions and reduction of greenhouse 19 gas emissions and no additional consumption of energy would result from operational 20 activities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact related to state or local 21 plans for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
129
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-49 November 2019
1 3.7 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential
substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
a. i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area
or based on other substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to Division of Mines
and Geology Special Publication 42.
b. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
c. iii Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
d. iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in
on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting
the use of septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of waste water?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
2 130
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-50 November 2019
1 2 This section is based on the Geotechnical Engineering Study for State Streets Water Capacity 3 and Sewer Rehabilitation Project – Jefferson Boulevard, Stone Boulevard, and Park Drive, West 4 Sacramento, California, prepared in October 2018 by Youngdahl Consulting Group 5 (Youngdahl). Additional information was provided by the Pavement Design and Soil 6 Contamination Evaluation prepared by Youngdahl in January 2019. 7 a. Directly or indirectly cause substantial adverse effects, including the 8 risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
9 i. Seismic-related rupture of a known earthquake fault (No Impact) 10 According to the Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas (Jennings 2010, as 11 cited in Youngdahl 2018) and the Peak Acceleration from Maximum Credible 12 Earthquakes in California (California Division of Mines and Geology 2007, as cited in 13 Youngdahl 2018), no active faults or Earthquake Fault Zones (Special Studies Zones) are 14 located on the project site. No evidence of recent or active faulting was observed during 15 a field study conducted by Youngdahl in 2018. The nearest mapped potentially active and 16 active faults relevant to the project site are identified in Table 3-3. 17 Table 3-3. Local Active and Potentially Active Faults Activity Fault Name Distance and Direction
Active Dunnigan Hills 19.9 mi (32 km) northwest
Active Midland Fault 18.6 mi (30 km) southwest
Active Green Valley Fault 38.5 mi (62 km) southwest
Potentially Active Bear Mountains Fault Zone – West 26 mi (42 km) east Potentially Active Bear Mountains Fault Zone – East 33 mi (53 km) east Potentially Active Maidu Fault 31 mi (50 km) northeast
Potentially Active Vaca Fault 29.8 mi (48 km) southwest Potentially Active Deadman Fault 32.9 mi (53 km) northeast 18 Source: Youngdahl Consulting Group 2018
19 Based on the distances and activity of nearby faults, the Proposed Project would have no 20 impact related to seismic-related rupture.
21 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking (No Impact)
22 The severity of ground shaking experienced at a specific location depends on a variety of 23 factors, such as the magnitude and duration of the seismic event, fault type associated 131
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-51 November 2019
1 with the event, distance from the epicenter, and physical properties of the underlying 2 geology and soils. Because the project site is not located near any known active faults and 3 is not in a seismically active region, the area is not likely to experience significant ground 4 shaking. No impact would result.
5 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction (No Impact) 6 Liquefaction can occur when water-saturated, loose sandy soils lose cohesion during 7 seismic shaking. The primary factor that triggers liquefaction is moderate to strong 8 ground shaking. Physical properties that increase susceptibility to liquefaction are 9 relatively clean/loose granular soils, and a shallow depth to groundwater and/or 10 saturated conditions. The project site is not located in a designated liquefaction zone nor 11 is it in a seismically active area (California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services [Cal 12 OES] 2018, as cited in Youngdahl 2018). As such, even though the existing site may overlie 13 artificial fill and is located near the Sacramento River (i.e., both factors increasing the 14 propensity for liquefaction), it is unlikely to experience liquefaction. The Proposed 15 Project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from 16 liquefaction. Therefore, no impact would occur.
17 iv. Landslides? (No Impact)
18 The project site is in a flat, developed area in the City of West Sacramento. The potential 19 for landslides to occur in this location is very low. No impact related to landslides would 20 result.
21 b. Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil (Less than Significant) 22 The Proposed Project’s construction activities would occur exclusively within an urban 23 residential neighborhood. Within this area, the work would take place in, on, and immediately 24 adjacent to existing City streets. Very little loss of topsoil would occur, as very little topsoil 25 would be disturbed by project activities.
26 Policy S-3.2 of the General Plan update requires that a geotechnical report be prepared and 27 its mitigation measures be incorporated into the design. The updated General Plan also has 28 two policies to address soil erosion: PFS-4.9 of Goal PFS-4, which imposes conditions on 29 grading projects during the rainy season; and NCR-4.7 of Goal NCR-4, which requires 30 compliance with the City’s grading ordinance and NPDES permit, ensuring preparation of a 31 SWPPP and issuance of a grading permit for all construction projects, as required by the 32 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the City’s municipal code. 33 These policies are implemented through the regulation and development review process, 34 which requires that all construction comply with the California Building Standards Code 35 (CBC). Therefore, the impacts of the Proposed Project related to erosion and loss of topsoil 36 would be less than significant.
132
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-52 November 2019
1 c. Location on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would 2 become unstable as a result of the Proposed Project and potentially 3 result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, 4 liquefaction, or collapse (Less than Significant)
5 The project area is in a topographically flat region and is therefore not susceptible to 6 landslides. The risk of lateral spreading is low, as the project area does not consist of fill 7 material. The City’s General Plan Update EIR (City of West Sacramento 2016) did not identify 8 any areas currently experiencing subsidence within West Sacramento. The majority of the 9 project site has elevation changes of less than 5 feet, which are associated with fills or 10 stockpiles. No slopes of engineering significance are present or anticipated on the site 11 following construction activities.
12 Policy S-3.2 of the General Plan update requires that a geotechnical report be prepared and 13 its mitigation measures be incorporated into the design. This policy is implemented through 14 the regulation and development review process, requiring that all construction comply with 15 the CBC, which addresses engineered fills and cuts. Compliance with City policy and the 16 regulation and development review process would ensure that impacts related to potential 17 seismic or geologic hazards would be less than significant. 18 d. Location on expansive soil, creating substantial direct or indirect risks 19 to life or property (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 20 Youngdahl (2018) reported that the materials encountered during field investigations were 21 generally non-plastic (sand and non-plastic silt). The non-plastic materials are generally 22 considered to be non-expansive; therefore, no special design considerations would be 23 required for the design or construction of the proposed improvements. Some layers of clay 24 were encountered at depth, however, raising the potential for expansive soils in these areas. 25 Policy S-3.2 of the General Plan update requires that a geotechnical report be prepared and 26 its mitigation measures be incorporated into the design. Implementation of Mitigation 27 Measure GEO-1 (Conduct Construction Monitoring During Clearing and Grading to 28 Provide Supplemental Recommendations if Necessary) would require that the project 29 engineer must be present during clearing and grading so that, if additional areas of expansive 30 soils are encountered, the project engineer would provide recommendations to reduce the 31 potential for risk to life or property from expansive soils. This impact would be less than 32 significant with mitigation.
33 Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Conduct Construction Monitoring During Clearing 34 and Grading to Provide Supplemental Recommendations if Necessary. 35 Construction monitoring is a continuation of the findings and recommendations 36 provided in the Geotechnical Report. The City shall involve the project engineer in all 37 grading activities to provide supplemental recommendations as field conditions 38 dictate. The project engineer will be notified at least 2 working days before site 39 clearing or grading operations commence, and will observe the overexcavation of 40 existing fills or loose/soft soils and provide consultation to the grading contractor in 41 the field.
133
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-53 November 2019
1 e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks 2 or alternative wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are 3 not available for the disposal of wastewater (No Impact) 4 The Proposed Project involves repair, replacement, and upgrade of a portion of the City’s 5 water and sewer infrastructure; repair and replacement of curb, gutter, and sidewalk; and 6 rehabilitation of deficient street sections throughout the State Streets neighborhood. Neither 7 septic tanks nor alternative wastewater disposal systems are present in the project area. No 8 impact on such facilities would result.
9 f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site 10 or unique geological feature (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 11 The Project site is in a previously disturbed area, and ground disturbance is not expected to 12 extend below a depth of 7 feet. Therefore, the Project is unlikely to impact scientifically 13 important paleontological resources. In the unlikely event that fossil remains are 14 encountered, paleontological mitigation will need to be developed. This mitigation would 15 include paleontological monitoring; collection of observed resources; preservation, 16 stabilization, and identification of collected resources; curation of resources into a museum 17 repository; and preparation of a monitoring report of findings. 18 No paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to exist within or near 19 the Project site. The site is underlain by Holocene Alluvium, which is considered to have low 20 paleontological sensitivity from the surface to a depth of 20 feet and high sensitivity below 21 that mark. However, the Project site is in a previously disturbed area and will have ground 22 disturbance that extends to a maximum depth of 7 feet. Therefore, the Project is unlikely to 23 impact scientifically important paleontological resources. Should undiscovered 24 paleontological resources be found during Project construction, Mitigation Measure GEO‐2 25 (Halt Excavation If Paleontological Resources Are Encountered, Evaluate the Find, and 26 Implement Measures to Avoid Impacts) shall be implemented to reduce potential impacts 27 on paleontological resources. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 28 Mitigation Measure GEO-2. Halt Excavation If Paleontological Resources Are 29 Encountered, Evaluate the Find, and Implement Measures to Avoid Impacts 30 If paleontological resources are encountered during Project excavation and no 31 monitor is present, all ground‐disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find shall be 32 redirected to other areas until a qualified paleontologist can be retained to evaluate 33 the find and make recommendations for additional paleontological mitigation, which 34 may include paleontological monitoring; collection of observed resources; 35 preservation, stabilization, and identification of collected resources; curation of 36 resources into a museum repository; and preparation of a final report documenting 37 the monitoring methods and results to be submitted to the museum repository and 38 the City of West Sacramento.
134
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-54 November 2019
1 3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
2 3
4 As described in more detail in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” YSAQMD has identified BMPs to 5 reduce construction equipment exhaust focus on strategies that reduce NOx, ROG, and PM10 6 emissions (YSAQMD 2007). These strategies may include restricting unnecessary vehicle 7 idling to 5 minutes, using reformulated and emulsified fuels, incorporating catalyst and 8 filtration technologies, and modernizing the equipment fleet with cleaner repower and newer 9 engines, among others.
10 a. Generate a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions which may have a 11 significant impact on the environment (Less than Significant) 12 As described in Section 3.3, “Air Quality,” the Proposed Project involves repair, replacement, 13 and upgrade of a portion of the City’s water and sewer infrastructure; repair and replacement 14 of curb, gutter, and sidewalk; and rehabilitation of deficient street sections throughout the 15 State Streets neighborhood. Construction activities would take place over an approximately 16 18-month period, and construction contractors would comply with YSAQMD BMPs. No 17 operational activities would involve emissions of greenhouse gases beyond the activities 18 taking place under existing conditions; in fact, replacement of the water main and pipelines 19 would reduce loss of water due to leaking pipes, resulting in reduced demand for water 20 supply and treatment. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not generate a net increase in 21 emissions of greenhouse gases. The impact would be less than significant. 22 b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the 23 purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases (Less than 24 Significant)
25 A project is deemed inconsistent with air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction plans 26 if it would result in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates 27 included in the applicable air quality plan, which, in turn, would generate emissions not 28 accounted for in the applicable air quality plan emissions budget. Therefore, projects need to 135
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-55 November 2019
1 be evaluated to determine whether they would generate population and employment growth 2 and, if so, whether that growth would exceed the growth rates included in the relevant air 3 quality and GHG reduction plans. The Proposed Project involves maintenance activities and 4 installation of utility infrastructure in a fully developed urban area. Therefore, the Proposed 5 Project would be consistent with local plans for growth, traffic, and air quality and would 6 have a less-than-significant impact related to GHG emissions. 136
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-56 November 2019
1 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project:
e. a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
f. b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
g. c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
h. d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
i. e. For a project located within 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 result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
j. f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
k. g. Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
2 3
4 The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) has been granted primary 5 responsibility by USEPA for administering and enforcing hazardous materials management 6 plans within California. CalEPA defines a hazardous material as a material that, because of its 137
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-57 November 2019
1 quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or 2 potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released (26 California 3 Code of Regulations [CCR] 25501).
4 State regulations include detailed planning and management requirements to ensure that 5 hazardous materials are properly handled, stored, and disposed of to reduce human health 6 risks. In particular, the state has acted to regulate the transfer and disposal of hazardous 7 waste. Hazardous waste haulers are required to comply with regulations that establish 8 numerous standards, including criteria for handling, documenting, and labeling the shipment 9 of hazardous waste (26 CCR 25160 et seq.).
10 CalEPA maintains the Hazardous Wastes and Substances Site (Cortese) List, a planning 11 document used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA 12 requirements in providing information about the locations of hazardous materials release 13 sites. The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), State Water Resources 14 Control Board, and California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery contribute to 15 the hazardous material release site listings, which are updated annually. 16 CalEPA delegates responsibility for many of its programs to local governments through 17 certification as a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). A CUPA is responsible for 18 implementing a unified hazardous materials and hazardous waste management program. As 19 the designated CUPA for Yolo County, the Environmental Health Services Division of Yolo 20 County is responsible for performing all assessments of environmental contamination 21 and/or human exposure, providing oversight of cleanup activity, and coordinating with the 22 lead state agency having cleanup jurisdiction.
23 As discussed in Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” a project that would disturb 24 1 acre or more of soil must obtain coverage under General Permit Order 2010-0014-DWQ. 25 Coverage under the General Permit requires the development and implementation of a 26 SWPPP. A SWPPP includes plans for erosion and sediment control and adheres to the 27 County’s grading ordinance and BMPs. Standard BMPs used during construction for erosion 28 control typically include the following:
29 ▪ Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points. 30 ▪ No cleaning, fueling, or maintaining of vehicles is allowed onsite, except in a 31 designated area where washwater is contained and treated. 32 ▪ Properly store, handle, and dispose of construction materials/wastes to prevent 33 contact with stormwater.
34 ▪ Train and provide instruction to all construction contract employees/ 35 subcontractors on implementation of the BMPs.
36 ▪ Control all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, 37 petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediments, rinse water, and non38 stormwater discharges and prevent their discharge to storm drains and 39 watercourses.
138
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-58 November 2019
1 a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through 2 the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials (Less 3 than Significant)
4 Construction activities for the Proposed Project would require the routine transport, use, or 5 disposal of hazardous materials (e.g., fuel, oil, petroleum products) and hazardous wastes 6 (potentially contaminated soils, as described in item 3.9[d] below), which could result in the 7 release of hazardous materials into the environment. The contractor would be required by 8 existing regulations to implement standard BMPs and SWPPP measures to control erosion, 9 sediment, and runoff in the project area during construction. In the event of releases of 10 hazardous materials into the environment, the CUPA would provide oversight of any 11 necessary cleanup activities.
12 The Proposed Project would be consistent with the City of West Sacramento General Plan, 13 which requires compliance with existing regulations. Existing regulations and BMPs, as 14 described above, would ensure that sites containing hazardous materials are cleaned up to 15 existing standards. This impact would be less than significant. 16 b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through 17 reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the 18 release of hazardous materials into the environment (Less than 19 Significant)
20 Construction equipment has the potential to release oils, greases, solvents, and other 21 finishing materials through accidental spills. Given the nature of hazardous materials that 22 would be used, stored, or disposed of (e.g., materials for construction equipment, potentially 23 contaminated soil), there is a possibility for upset and accident conditions involving the 24 release of hazardous materials into the environment. Accidental releases of small quantities 25 of these substances could contaminate soils and degrade the quality of surface water and 26 groundwater, resulting in a public safety hazard. However, the handling and disposal of these 27 materials would be governed according to regulations enforced by the West Sacramento Fire 28 Department, the CUPA, California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of 29 Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), and DTSC. In addition, regulations under the 30 federal Clean Water Act require contractors to avoid allowing the release of materials into 31 surface waters as part of their SWPPP and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 32 permit requirements (see Section 3.10, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” for a discussion of 33 SWPPPs). Therefore, the use of hazardous materials during construction would not result in 34 a reasonably foreseeable upset or accident condition that would cause significant hazard to 35 the public or environment.
36 Reasonably foreseeable spills under operational conditions would be handled according to 37 the specifications of the County Hazardous Waste Management Plan. This plan governs the 38 preparation and implementation the County's Area Plan for emergency response to chemical 39 spills in the community.
40 Based on the existing regulatory scheme, this impact would be less than significant, and no 41 mitigation is required.
139
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-59 November 2019
1 c. Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely 2 hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of 3 an existing or proposed school (No Impact)
4 No schools are located within ¼ mile of the project area. Therefore, there would be no 5 impact.
6 d. Located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites 7 compiled pursuant to Government Code § 65962.5 and, as a result, 8 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (No 9 Impact)
10 According to the geotechnical report prepared by Youngdahl (2018), one site in West 11 Sacramento—Capitol Plating—appears on DTSC’s Cortese List. Site assessment has been 12 underway since 1999 and the site’s status has been listed as Open – Inactive since that time. 13 DTSC conducted a targeted site investigation in 2005, and the facility was demolished in 14 2005. The potential for soil or groundwater contamination for this property is considered 15 high; however, this site is not within the project area (City of West Sacramento 2016). 16 No hazardous materials sites included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code 17 Section 65962.5 are present within the city boundaries, and no Comprehensive 18 Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund) or other National 19 Priorities List sites are within the city limits (City of West Sacramento 2016). Therefore, the 20 Proposed Project would not result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment 21 through exposure to such sites.
22 Youngdahl prepared a geotechnical engineering study for the project area (Youngdahl 2018). 23 During field work, petroleum contaminated soils were detected in one soil boring at a depth 24 of 11.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). Based on the literature review for the geotechnical 25 study, the source of the contamination was likely to be a petroleum-contaminated 26 groundwater plume from a former 7-Eleven gas station at the northwest corner of Jefferson 27 Boulevard and Vermont Avenue and another plume from a Buckeye Partners petroleum 28 facility southeast of Alameda Boulevard. Additional borings were conducted to a depth of 29 approximately 9 feet bgs and tested for potential hydrocarbon contamination (Youngdahl 30 2019).
31 Laboratory analysis identified polychlorine biphyenyls (PCBs), VOCs, and several TPH 32 constituents in the original soil boring at levels above residential Tier 1 levels established by 33 the San Francisco Bay RWQCB’s Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), a series of tables 34 that reflect the concentration of hazardous chemicals considered to represent the thresholds 35 of concern for risk to human health. DTSC recognizes the ESLs as a suitable screening level 36 for petroleum hydrocarbons such as gasoline and diesel. However, because the Proposed 37 Project would be located within city street right-of-way rather than on residential properties, 38 the levels were compared to commercial levels and found to be within applicable screening 39 levels established by the RWQCB, USEPA, and DTSC or within background concentrations. 40 The two additional soil borings had no indications of petroleum contamination. 140
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-60 November 2019
1 The Proposed Project would be consistent with the updated General Plan, which requires 2 compliance with existing provisions regarding hazardous material sites. Existing regulations 3 would ensure that sites containing hazardous materials be cleaned up to existing standards 4 for the proposed land use prior to development. There would be no impact. 5 e. Located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has 6 not been adopted, be within 2 miles of a private airport or public 7 airport and result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people 8 residing or working in the study area (No Impact)
9 The nearest airports to the State Streets neighborhood are Sacramento Executive Airport, 10 located 7 miles southeast on the east side of the Sacramento River at 6151 Freeport 11 Boulevard; and Sacramento International Airport, located approximately 13 miles north on 12 I-5 between Sacramento and Woodland. The project site is not located within 2 miles of an 13 airport or within an airport land use plan area. There would be no impact. 14 f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 15 emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan (Less than 16 Significant)
17 Construction activities for the Proposed Project could cause temporary changes in emergency 18 access. Existing City requirements for construction projects require signage and an access 19 plan to ensure continued emergency access during construction. Consequently, the impact is 20 considered less than significant.
21 g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a 22 significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires (No 23 Impact)
24 The project area is an urban neighborhood that is fully developed. No impact related to 25 wildland fires would result.
141
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-61 November 2019
1 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
l. a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or ground water
quality?
m. b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
n. c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or
through the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
o. p. i.q. result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site;
r. s. ii.t. substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on- or offsite;
u. v. iii. w. create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
x. y. iv. z. impede or redirect flood flows?
aa. d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
bb. e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a
water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
2 3
4 West Sacramento is within the Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin, Yolo Sub‐basin, and is 5 under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB. The Sacramento River flows along the 142
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-62 November 2019
1 east and northeast boundaries of the city and is the largest river in California. The river’s flow 2 is controlled by several principal reservoirs, including Lake Shasta and Trinity Lake to the 3 north, Lake Oroville along the Feather River, and Folsom Lake along the American River. The 4 water quality of the Sacramento River is generally good to excellent and has relatively low 5 biochemical oxygen demand, medium to high dissolved oxygen, and low mineral and nutrient 6 content (City of West Sacramento 2016).
7 The City maintains one groundwater well, which is currently on standby status but is 8 available for emergencies. Surface water from the Sacramento River is used to meet water 9 demands within West Sacramento.
10 Stormwater runoff is collected into gutters, storm drains, and retention basins and ultimately 11 flows into local waterways. Pollutants in West Sacramento’s urban stormwater include 12 sediments, non-sediment soils, nutrients, pathogens, oxygen‐demanding substances, total 13 petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, floatables, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, trash, 14 pesticides, and herbicides.
15 Given its proximity to the Sacramento River, West Sacramento is located in the river’s 16 floodplain. The city is surrounded by levees, including those immediately south and east of 17 the project area, that are maintained by the State and local reclamation districts. The Federal 18 Emergency Management Agency is currently reevaluating flood zone designation maps in 19 West Sacramento. In addition, the City is concurrently working to complete levee 20 improvements to increase flood protection within West Sacramento. At this time, most of the 21 city, including the Project site, is classified as Zone X. Flood Zone X has no statutory 22 requirement for flood insurance and allows new construction and expansion of existing 23 structures without being subject to elevation and flood proofing requirements (City of West 24 Sacramento 2016).
25 a. Violate any water quality standards, waste discharge requirements or 26 otherwise substantially degrade water quality (Less than Significant) 27 Construction activities for the Proposed Project would require excavation, grading, and 28 paving. Any soil removed during construction would be stored and controlled to reduce soil 29 erosion and sedimentation of downstream waterways. Pollutants and hazardous materials, 30 such as gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, solvents, and trash stored and used during construction, 31 would be subject to State and local regulations. Compliance with these regulations would 32 reduce the potential for materials to enter drainages and degrade downstream water quality. 33 The State Water Resources Control Board requires dischargers whose projects disturb 1 or 34 more acres of soil to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water 35 Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit 99‐08‐DWQ). Effective 36 July 1, 2010, all dischargers are required to obtain coverage under the Construction General 37 Permit Order 2009‐ 0009‐DWQ adopted on September 2, 2009. Construction activity subject 38 to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling 39 or excavation. The development and implementation of a SWPPP would be required under 40 the Construction General Permit. The SWPPP would identify BMPs that the discharger would 41 use to control the release of pollutants in stormwater runoff. Additionally, the SWPPP would 42 contain a visual monitoring program and a chemical monitoring program for “nonvisible” 43 pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of the BMPs. 143
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-63 November 2019
1 In addition, the Project would comply with the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento 2 and San Joaquin River Basins and would therefore not violate any water quality standards or 3 regulations. The Project would result in a less-than-significant impact related to water 4 quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
5 b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially 6 with groundwater recharge, such that the project may impede 7 sustainable groundwater management of the basin (Less than 8 Significant)
9 The Proposed Project would involve upgrading water and sanitary sewer infrastructure, 10 rehabilitating water and sewer mains, and repairing and/or replacing curbs, gutters, 11 sidewalks, and retrofits required to comply with the ADA and replace deficient and failed 12 street sections throughout the State Streets neighborhood. No additional use of groundwater 13 would be required for construction or operation of the Proposed Project; in fact, replacement 14 of the water main and pipelines would reduce loss of water due to leaking pipes, resulting in 15 reduced demand for water supply and treatment. Repair and rehabilitation of street sections 16 would involve paving of some segments of neighborhood roadways; however, these 17 roadways are paved under existing conditions, and the amount of pavement would not be 18 increased as a result of the Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a 19 less-than-significant impact on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. 20 c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, 21 including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or 22 through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
23 i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site (Less than 24 Significant)
25 Construction activities for the Proposed Project would involve excavation within city 26 streets to repair, remove, and/or replace water and sanitary sewer mains and pipelines. 27 Exposure of subsurface soils during the rainy season could result in erosion or siltation 28 of runoff. All construction activities would be conducted in compliance with the City’s 29 standards and applicable State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) requirements, 30 including preparation of a SWPPP, which would prevent runoff from causing substantial 31 erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Therefore, the impact of the Proposed Project related 32 to erosion or siltation would be less than significant. 33 ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a 34 manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite (No Impact) 35 As described in Chapter 2, Project Description, one aspect of the Proposed Project would 36 be rehabilitation of deficient street sections. The project area is a fully developed urban 37 neighborhood, however, and the pavement being laid down would be replacing existing 38 pavement. Therefore, no increase in the amount of impervious surface would result from 39 the Proposed Project, which would have no impact on the rate and amount of surface 40 runoff.
144
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-64 November 2019
1 iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the 2 capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or 3 provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff (No 4 Impact)
5 The Proposed Project does not include construction of new stormwater drainage 6 facilities; however, street gutters would be repaired in areas where they have been 7 damaged by tree roots or where construction activities require excavation or temporary 8 removal of the curb, gutter, and sidewalk and disturbance of the surface pavement. These 9 activities would involve replacement of existing stormwater drainage systems. The 10 Proposed Project would have no impact on stormwater drainage. 11 iv. impede or redirect flood flows (No Impact)
12 The risk of flooding in the project area is extremely minor because the area is protected 13 by levees certified by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to protect against 14 the 100-year storm event. The Proposed Project would have no impact related to flood 15 flows.
16 d. Located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of 17 pollutants due to project inundation (Less than Significant) 18 West Sacramento is not at risk for tsunami, and the project area is not adjacent to a body of 19 water that could experience seiche. The city is located near the confluence of the American 20 and Sacramento Rivers, and the Sacramento River Deep Water Ship Channel meets the 21 Sacramento River just south of Stone Boulevard, the southern boundary of the project area. 22 As a result, flooding is a concern in parts of West Sacramento. The Proposed Project area is 23 protected by a levee certified by FEMA to provide 100-year protection (FEMA 1995, as cited 24 in LSA Associates 2019), east of Jefferson Boulevard and the Western Pacific Railroad tracks. 25 As described in item (a) above, construction contractors would be required to implement a 26 SWPPP to control the release of pollutants in stormwater. Construction activities would 27 involve handling of fuel, oil, and other pollutants that could be toxic to fish and other aquatic 28 organisms. An accidental spill or inadvertent discharge of these materials could affect the 29 water quality of the Sacramento River. Construction contractors would be required to 30 prepare and implement a SWPPP and comply with the conditions of the National Pollutant 31 Discharge Elimination System general stormwater permit for construction activity. The 32 SWPPP would include implementation of a monitoring program and a Spill Prevention 33 Control and Countermeasures Plan. The contractor would be required to obtain a permit from 34 the Central Valley RWQCB detailing a plan to control any spills that occur during construction. 35 The plan would describe the construction activities to be performed, BMPs that would be 36 implemented to prevent discharges of contaminated stormwater into waterways, and 37 inspection and monitoring activities that would be conducted. 38 Compliance with state and local regulations and implementation of a SWPPP would result in 39 a less-than-significant impact.
145
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-65 November 2019
1 e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control 2 plan or sustainable groundwater management plan (No Impact) 3 As stated in item (b) above, the Proposed Project would involve upgrading water and sanitary 4 sewer infrastructure, rehabilitating water and sewer mains, and repairing and/or replacing 5 curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and retrofits required to comply with the ADA and replace deficient 6 and failed street sections throughout the State Streets neighborhood. All construction 7 activities would be conducted in compliance with City standards, including preparation of a 8 SWPPP with a monitoring program and a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan. 9 No additional use of groundwater would be required for construction or operation of the 10 Proposed Project. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on water quality 11 control plans and sustainable groundwater management plans. 146
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-66 November 2019
1 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project:
a. Physically divide an established community?
b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to
a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or
regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
2 3
4 a. Divide an established community (No Impact)
5 During construction activities for the repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of water and 6 sanitary sewer facilities, city streets in the State Streets neighborhood would be trenched and 7 excavated to remove and install pipelines. This activity would be conducted incrementally 8 over a 6-month period. Trenches would be covered during non-work hours to avoid access 9 limitations for neighborhood residents. Following the completion of construction, no barriers 10 or division would be visible aboveground. The Proposed Project would have no impact 11 related to division of an established community.
12 b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any 13 land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding 14 or mitigating an environmental effect (Less than Significant) 15 Implementation of the Proposed Project would benefit residents of the State Streets 16 neighborhood by improving water supply and pressure, sanitary sewer operation, and street 17 conditions. These improvements would comply with the City’s construction standards and 18 regulatory requirements. The impact would be less than significant. 147
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-67 November 2019
1 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project:
cc. a. Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
dd. b. Result in the loss of availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or
other land use plan?
2 3
4 a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that 5 would be of value to the region and the residents of the state (No 6 Impact)
7 The project area is a fully developed residential neighborhood in an urban environment. The 8 City of West Sacramento General Plan (City of West Sacramento 2016) identifies no mineral 9 resources within the city. There would be no impact.
10 b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource 11 recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other 12 land use plan (No Impact)
13 The project area is a fully developed residential neighborhood in an urban environment. The 14 City of West Sacramento General Plan (City of West Sacramento 2016) identifies no locally 15 important mineral resources within the city. There would be no impact. 148
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-68 November 2019
1 3.13 NOISE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project result in:
a. 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?
b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
c. For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or 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, would the project expose people residing
or working in the project site to excessive noise
levels?
2 3 Noise
4 In the CEQA context, noise can be defined as unwanted sound. Sound is characterized by 5 various parameters, including the rate of oscillation of sound waves (frequency), the speed 6 of propagation, and the pressure level or energy content (amplitude). In particular, the sound 7 pressure level is the most common descriptor used to characterize the loudness of an ambient 8 sound level, or sound intensity. The decibel (dB) scale is used to quantify sound intensity. 9 Because sound pressure can vary enormously within the range of human hearing, a 10 logarithmic scale is used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable 11 level. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies in the spectrum, so noise 12 measurements are weighted more heavily for frequencies to which humans are sensitive, 13 creating the A-weighted decibel (dBA) scale.
14 In general, human sound perception is such that a change in sound level of 3 dB is barely 15 noticeable, a change of 5 dB is clearly noticeable, and a change of 10 dB is perceived as 16 doubling or halving the sound level. Table 3-4 presents approximate noise levels for common 17 noise sources, measured adjacent to the source.
149
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-69 November 2019
1 Table 3-4. Examples of Common Noise Levels
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA)
Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 100
Diesel truck at 50 feet traveling 50 miles per hour 90
Noisy urban area, daytime 80
Gas lawnmower at 100 feet, commercial area 70
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60
Quiet urban area, daytime 50
Quiet urban area, nighttime 40
Quiet suburban area, nighttime 30
Quiet rural area, nighttime 20
2 Source: Caltrans 2009
3 Vibration
4 Ground-borne vibration propagates from the source through the ground to adjacent 5 buildings by surface waves. Vibration may be composed of a single pulse, a series of pulses, 6 or a continuous oscillatory motion. The frequency of a vibrating object describes how rapidly 7 it is oscillating, measured in Hertz (Hz). Most environmental vibrations consist of a 8 composite, or “spectrum,” of many frequencies. The normal frequency range of most ground9 borne vibrations that can be felt generally starts from a low frequency of less than 1 Hz to a 10 high of about 200 Hz. Vibration information for this analysis has been described in terms of 11 the peak particle velocity (PPV), measured in inches per second, or of the vibration level 12 measured with respect to root-mean-square vibration velocity in decibels (VdB), with a 13 reference quantity of 1 micro-inch per second.
14 Vibration energy dissipates as it travels through the ground, causing the vibration amplitude 15 to decrease with distance away from the source. Soil properties also affect the propagation of 16 vibration. Vibration in buildings is typically perceived as rattling of windows, shaking of loose 17 items, or the motion of building surfaces. In some cases, the vibration of building surfaces 18 also can be radiated as sound and heard as a low-frequency rumbling noise, known as 19 ground-borne noise.
20 Ground-borne vibration is generally limited to areas within a few hundred feet of certain 21 types of industrial operations and construction/demolition activities, such as pile driving. 22 Road vehicles rarely create enough ground-borne vibration amplitude to be perceptible to 23 humans unless the receiver is in immediate proximity to the source or the road surface is 24 poorly maintained and has potholes or bumps. Generally, people are more sensitive to low25 frequency vibration. Human annoyance also is related to the number and duration of events; 26 the more events or the greater the duration, the more annoying it becomes. 150
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-70 November 2019
1 2 The City’s General Plan Safety Element (City of West Sacramento 2016) identifies Goal S‐7:
3 “To protect city residents from the harmful effects of excessive noise and vibration.” Policies 4 S‐7.1 through S‐7.10 are outlined to achieve the City’s goal; however, these policies are 5 directed primarily to new development. The City’s performance standards for noise and 6 vibration, found in Chapter 17.28.110 and Chapter 17.28.140 of its Municipal Code, are the 7 primary enforcement tool for the operation of locally regulated noise sources, such as 8 construction activity or outdoor recreation facilities. These sections of the Municipal Code set 9 noise level performance standards for non-transportation noise sources, such as 10 construction equipment; industrial operations; outdoor recreation facilities; heating, 11 ventilation, and air‐conditioning units; and loading docks. The standards for residential land 12 uses are shown in Table 3-5. Because the City’s performance standards do not specify an 13 exemption for temporary daytime construction activity, the daytime (7 a.m.-10 p.m.) and 14 nighttime (10 p.m.-7 a.m.) limits specified in the City’s performance standards for noise apply 15 to all construction activities in West Sacramento.
16 Table 3-5. City of West Sacramento Noise Level Standards for Non-transportation Uses Land Use Noise Level Descriptor (dBA)
Exterior Interior
Day Night Day Night
Residential Hourly Leq 50 45 45 35
Maximum level 70 65 – –
17 Note: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = day-night equivalent sound level 18 Source: City of West Sacramento 2016.
19 The City’s Municipal Code prohibits the installation of any operation that consistently 20 produces noticeable construction‐ or operation‐related vibration beyond the property line. 21 In addition, the City’s General Plan Safety Element includes Policy S‐7.6: Vibration Standards, 22 which states: “The City shall require construction projects and new development anticipated 23 to generate a significant amount of vibration to ensure acceptable interior vibration levels at 24 nearby noise-sensitive uses based on Federal Transit Administration criteria.” Table 3-6 25 shows the Federal Transit Administration criteria included in General Plan Policy S‐7.6 as the 26 City’s vibration impact criteria for frequent events, occasional events, and infrequent events. 27 Table 3-6. Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment Land Use
Impact Levels1(VdB)
Frequent Occasional Infrequent
Category 1: Buildings where vibrations would interfere
with interior operations2
65 65 65
Category 2: Residences and buildings where people 72 75 80 151
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-71 November 2019
Land Use
Impact Levels1(VdB)
Frequent Occasional Infrequent
normally sleep
Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily
daytime uses 75 78 83
1 1 Impact levels, in vibration decibels (VdB), are defined by event frequency as follows: frequent – 2 more than 70 vibration events of the same source per day; occasional – 30-70 vibration events of 3 the same source per day; infrequent – fewer than 30 vibration events of the same source per day. 4 2 This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, 5 such as optical microscopes. Vibration‐sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed 6 evaluation to define the acceptable vibration levels. 7 Source: City of West Sacramento 2016.
8 a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in 9 ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards 10 established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable 11 standards of other agencies (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 12 As listed in Section 2.5.5 of Chapter 2, Project Description, the following equipment would be 13 used during construction activities for the Proposed Project:
Water Main and Sewer Main Installation
▪ track-mounted excavators (2)
▪ end dump/haul trucks (4)
▪ flat-bed delivery truck (1)
▪ concrete truck (1)
▪ backhoe (1)
▪ front-end loaders (2)
▪ vac truck (1)
▪ concrete saw (1)
▪ pipe cutting saw (2)
▪ water truck (1)
▪ street sweeper (1)
▪ “Ditch Witch” horizontal directional drill
machine (1)
▪ compressor/jack hammer (1)
▪ crew trucks (F150-F350) (3)
Sewer CIPP Installation
▪ TVI truck (1)
▪ vac truck (2)
▪ refig truck/liner truck (1)
▪ generator truck (1)
▪ water truck (1)
▪ boiler truck (1)
▪ crew trucks (F150-F350) (3)
14 Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the 15 dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to 16 be categorized by work phase. Table 3-7 lists typical construction equipment noise levels 152
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-72 November 2019
1 (Lmax) recommended for noise impact assessments based on a distance of 50 feet between 2 the equipment and a noise receptor.
3 Normal construction activity may generate high noise levels from an active construction area. 4 Equipment includes backhoes, compactors, and dump trucks. Typical operating cycles for 5 these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full-power operation 6 followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings. Noise associated with the use of 7 construction equipment is estimated between 55 and 85 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet 8 from each piece of equipment. As shown in Table 3-7, the maximum noise level generated by 9 a front-end loader, dump truck, excavator, and Ditch Witch would be approximately 80 dBA 10 Lmax, 84 dBA Lmax, 85 dBA Lmax, and 86 dBA Lmax at 50 feet, respectively. Each piece of 11 construction equipment operates as an individual point source. Using these estimates, the 12 conservative composite noise level during this phase of construction would be approximately 13 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from an active construction area. 14 Table 3-7. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment
Acoustical
Usage Factor
(%)
Maximum
Noise Level
(Lmax) at 50
Feet*
Compactor (ground) 20 80
Dump Trucks 40 84
Excavators 40 85
Flatbed Trucks 40 84
Forklift 20 85
Front-End Loaders 40 80
Graders 40 85
Jackhammers 20 85
Pickup Truck 40 55
Pavers 40 84
Pneumatic Tools 50 85
Rollers 20 85
Tractors 40 84
15 * Maximum noise levels were developed based on Spec 721.560 from 16 the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) program to be consistent with the 17 City of Boston’s Noise Code for the “Big Dig” project. 18 Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
19 Source: Federal Highway Administration 2018.
20 Single-family residential units are considered sensitive receptors, and the State Streets 21 neighborhood is a fully developed residential area. In general, construction activities related 153
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-73 November 2019
1 to water and sanitary sewer pipeline installation would take place along the centerline of the 2 road, approximately 25 feet from the outside wall of the nearest residences. 3 Noise modeling for a similar project, the West Capitol Avenue Road Rehabilitation Project, 4 evaluated a concrete saw at a distance of 20 feet from residences, a cement truck at 35 feet, 5 and a paver at 55 feet (LSA Associates 2019). The results indicate that the residences would 6 be exposed to exterior noise levels of up to 97.5 dBA Lmax and interior noise levels as loud 7 as 65.9 dBA Leq with an exterior‐to‐interior attenuation of 25 dBA applied. Therefore, some 8 residential sensitive noise receptors could be exposed to short‐term noise impacts that would 9 exceed the City’s daytime exterior and interior noise level standards for residential uses. In 10 all, active construction would take place in front of each affected residence for approximately 11 6 days over the year-long construction period. However, noise levels during the brief period 12 of active construction outside each residence could exceed the City’s noise thresholds, 13 resulting in a significant impact.
14 Following the completion of construction, the Proposed Project would not generate new or 15 increased noise sources or increase long‐term noise levels above existing conditions. Once 16 operational, the Project would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise 17 levels in excess of City standards.
18 Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI‐1 through NOI‐5 would reduce construction 19 noise levels at the sensitive receptors to the extent feasible and, in addition, would require 20 the City to provide lodging accommodations to affected residents, if requested, while active 21 construction is taking place, thus removing affected residents from the construction areas 22 and eliminating construction noise impacts for such sensitive receptors. Therefore, 23 construction noise impacts on sensitive receptors would be less than significant with 24 mitigation.
25 Mitigation Measure NOI‐1. Equip Construction Equipment with Mufflers. 26 Prior to any construction activity, the construction contractor (confirmed by the City), 27 shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and 28 maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. 29 Mitigation Measure NOI‐2. Locate Staging Areas Away from Residences. 30 Prior to and during any construction activity, the construction contractor (confirmed 31 by the City or a City-appointed noise liaison) shall locate equipment staging in areas 32 that would create the greatest possible distance between construction‐related noise 33 sources and residences.
34 Mitigation Measure NOI‐3. Limit Construction Hours.
35 The construction contractor, through enforcement by the City, shall ensure that all 36 general construction‐related activities be restricted to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. 37 to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Construction activities shall be restricted from 38 occurring on weekends (Saturday and Sunday) and on holidays. 154
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-74 November 2019
1 Mitigation Measure NOI‐4. Appoint a Construction Noise Liaison, Enforce Noise 2 Requirements, and Respond to Noise Complaints.
3 The City shall appoint a construction noise liaison who shall be responsible for 4 responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The City shall facilitate 5 a focus meeting with project area residents, the construction contractor, and the noise 6 liaison to notify residents of potential impacts and measures to reduce such impacts. 7 If a noise complaint related to construction is received, the construction noise 8 liaison shall determine the cause of the construction noise issue (e.g., construction 9 activities outside of City authorized times, bad muffler) and shall enforce existing 10 City noise requirements with the construction contractor. If the noise complaint 11 cannot be resolved through enforcement, Mitigation Measure NOI-5 shall be 12 implemented.
13 Mitigation Measure NOI‐5. Notify Residents Before Active Construction Begins 14 and Provide Lodging Accommodations by Request.
15 At least 2 weeks (14 days) prior to commencement of construction activities within 16 500 feet (two blocks) of residences, the City (in coordination with the construction 17 contractor and construction noise liaison) shall provide written notification to those 18 residences of construction activities, the intended length of occurrence, the potential 19 occurrence for short-term noise level increases, and noise liaison contact 20 information. The written notification may be distributed to residences in person or 21 by mail.
22 The City shall also inform residents of the option to relocate temporarily to off-site lodging 23 accommodations during active construction to reduce construction noise impacts. Lodging 24 accommodations will be arranged at the City’s discretion. Affected residents shall request 25 such accommodations through the City-appointed noise liaison. 26 b. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise 27 levels (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
28 Vibration thresholds for buildings occur at a PPV of 0.12 in/sec for buildings extremely 29 susceptible to vibration damage; the human perception threshold is at 65 VdB. Vibration and 30 ground-borne noise levels were estimated following methods described in the Federal 31 Transit Administration (FTA) Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 2006) to 32 determine the PPV that would potentially impact buildings and the VdB for annoyance. 33 Ground vibrations from construction activities do not often reach the levels that can damage 34 structures, but they can achieve the audible and feelable ranges in buildings very close to the 35 site. The construction activities that typically generate the most severe vibrations are blasting 36 and impact pile driving. The primary concern associated with such vibrations is annoyance. 37 Various types of construction equipment have been measured under a wide variety of 38 construction activities, with an average of source levels reported in terms of velocity. During 39 construction, general construction equipment is expected to be used, including off‐highway 40 trucks, off‐highway tractors, excavators, pavers, compaction equipment (rollers), dump 41 trucks, hauling equipment, and loaders. Table 3-8 shows the vibration levels of various types 155
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-75 November 2019
1 of construction equipment measured in PPV and VdB at a distance of 25 feet from the 2 equipment.
3 Table 3-8. Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Construction Equipment PPV at 25 feet
(in/sec)
Approximate
VdB at 25 feet
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
4 Notes: in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity; VdB = 5 vibration velocity decibels
6 7 Source: Federal Transit Administration 2006.
8 As indicated in Table 3-8, construction equipment used in the project area would be well 9 below the damage threshold for typical residential buildings. Construction‐generated 10 vibrations are not expected to cause damage to nearby buildings or sensitive receptors. 11 However, implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI‐3 through NOI‐5 would further reduce 12 impacts related to groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. Therefore, this impact 13 would be less than significant with mitigation.
14 c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an 15 airport land use plan area, or, within 2 miles of a public airport or 16 public-use airport, would the project expose people residing or 17 working in the project site to excessive noise levels (No Impact) 18 The project area is not within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public airport; 19 therefore, no impact would occur.
156
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-76 November 2019
1 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth
in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people
or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
2 3
4 a. Induce unplanned population growth (No Impact)
5 The Proposed Project would involve repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of water and 6 sanitary sewer infrastructure and minor street improvements in a fully developed urban 7 neighborhood. Water and sewer conveyance facilities would be upgraded but the capacity to 8 serve new connections would not be increased. Therefore, no potential for population growth 9 would result from the Proposed Project, and there would be no impact. 10 b. Displace a substantial number of existing people or housing (No 11 Impact)
12 During construction activities for the repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of water and 13 sanitary sewer facilities, city streets in the State Streets neighborhood would be trenched and 14 excavated to remove and install pipelines. This activity would be conducted incrementally 15 over a 6-month period. Trenches would be covered during non-work hours to maintain 16 access for neighborhood residents. The Proposed Project would have no impact related to 17 displacement of people or housing.
157
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-77 November 2019
1 3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
Would the Project:
ee. a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives for any of the
public services:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
2 3
4 a. Result in adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 5 new or physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or 6 physically altered governmental facilities
7 i. Fire protection (Less than Significant)
8 Repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of water and sanitary sewer mains and pipelines, as 9 well as repair of curb, gutter, and sidewalk and street repair, would not create additional 10 demand for fire protection services. In fact, replacement of the aging water main, as identified 11 in the City’s 2015 Water Master Plan Update (Carollo 2017), would improve water system 12 reliability and supply to customers and improve fire flows in the area. The impact would be 13 less than significant.
158
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-78 November 2019
1 ii. Police protection (Less than Significant)
2 Repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of water and sanitary sewer mains and pipelines, as 3 well as repair of curb, gutter, and sidewalk and street repair, would not create additional 4 demand for police protection services. Construction activities would be temporary, and 5 operation of the upgraded facilities following construction would be almost entirely 6 belowground. The impact would be less than significant. 7 iii. Schools (No Impact)
8 The nearest school to the project area is Westmore Oaks Elementary School, located 0.8 mile 9 northwest of the neighborhood at 1100 Clarendon Street. No schools are located within the 10 project area or would be affected by construction activities. As described in item 3.14(a) in 11 Section 3.14, “Population and Housing,” the Proposed Project would not induce population 12 growth. There would be no impact on schools.
13 iv. Parks (Less than Significant)
14 Three small neighborhood parks are located within the project area: Circle Park, Memorial 15 Park, and Sam Combs Park. Construction activities for the Proposed Project would not 16 preclude neighborhood residents from visiting these parks, except for the brief periods when 17 work is actively underway in the streets adjacent to each park. The Proposed Project may 18 improve the quality of water service to the parks by eliminating leaks in the pipelines, which 19 would benefit park visitors. The impact of the Proposed Project on parks would be less than 20 significant.
21 v. Other public facilities (No Impact)
22 No public library or other public facilities are located within the project area that could be 23 affected by the Proposed Project. There would be no impact on other public facilities. 159
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-79 November 2019
1 3.16 RECREATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact No Impact
Would the Project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
2 3
4 Three neighborhood parks are located with the project area, as described in Table 3-9. 5 Table 3-9. Recreational Facilities in the Project Area Park Address Size Facilities Ownership
Sam Combs Park 205 Stone
Boulevard
4.5 acres Picnic area; BBQs;
tot lot; horseshoe
pits; fenced, offleash dog play area;
restrooms; walking
paths
Owned by Port of
Sacramento;
maintained by the
City of West
Sacramento
Memorial Park 401 Regent Street 4.0 acres 4 baseball
diamonds; picnic
area; tot lot;
horseshoe pits;
half-court
basketball;
restrooms
City of West
Sacramento
Circle Park 1509 Circle Street 0.3 acre Picnic tables, trees City of West Sacramento
6 Source: Local Wiki West Sacramento 2019
160
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-80 November 2019
1 a. Increase use of existing parks or recreational facilities (Less than 2 Significant)
3 The Proposed Project would involve repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of water and 4 sanitary sewer infrastructure and minor street improvements in a fully developed urban 5 neighborhood. Construction activities would not obstruct or interfere with access to or use 6 of the existing parks in the project area because construction would proceed as with the 7 adjacent residential properties. Operation of the improved infrastructure could benefit park 8 landscaping and restrooms, and ADA-related installation of curb ramps would improve 9 access to these areas; however, the Proposed Project would not generate additional 10 population that could increase use of the facilities. The impact would be less than significant 11 related to existing parks.
12 b. Creation of new or altered recreational facilities (No Impact) 13 As described in item 3.14(a) in Section 3.14, “Population and Housing,” the Proposed Project 14 would not induce population growth. Therefore, there would be no need for creation of new 15 or altered recreational facilities. There would be no impact. 161
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-81 November 2019
1 3.17 TRANSPORTATION
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project:
a. Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b), “Criteria for Analyzing Transportation
Impacts”?
c. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access?
2 3 Discussion
4 Project-related activities would take place entirely within the State Streets residential 5 neighborhood, bounded by Jefferson Boulevard, Park Boulevard, 15th Street, and Stone 6 Boulevard. Construction activities would consist of trenching, excavation, removal, 7 installation, and recovering of water and sewer mains and pipelines within the right-of-way 8 of residential streets. Rehabilitation of curb, gutter, and sidewalk and repaving would also 9 take place in some areas. As described in Section 2.5.5, “Construction Equipment,” in Chapter 10 2, Project Description, approximately 20-35 construction workers would commute to and 11 from the project site each work day over the approximately 18-month work period. Following 12 the completion of construction activities, operation of the Proposed Project facilities would 13 remain unchanged from existing conditions, and no increase in traffic would result in the long 14 term.
15 The City of West Sacramento General Plan EIR indicates that no intersections in the project 16 area are operating at unacceptable levels of service (LOS), although the Jefferson 17 Boulevard/Park Street interchange with U.S. Highway 50 westbound ramps operates at LOS 18 E during the a.m. peak hour (City of West Sacramento 2016a). The Stone Boulevard and 15th 19 Street intersections with Jefferson Boulevard operate at acceptable LOS during a.m. and p.m. 20 peak hours (City of West Sacramento 2016a).
21 The project area is served by YOLOBUS Routes 35 and 39, and Class II bike lanes are present 22 on Park Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard in and adjacent to the project area (City of West 162
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-82 November 2019
1 Sacramento 2016a). Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist of sidewalks throughout 2 the neighborhood on both sides of the street.
3 a. Conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the 4 circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle and pedestrian 5 facilities (No Impact)
6 In addition to replacing and rehabilitating water and sanitary sewer mains and pipelines, the 7 Proposed Project repair curb, gutter, and sidewalk and rehabilitate deteriorating pavement 8 along residential streets in the State Streets neighborhood. These improvements would be 9 consistent with policies on Complete Streets, including accessibility (M-2.4), street amenities 10 (M-2.5) and retrofits (M-2.10); and policies on walkability, including sidewalk safety and 11 pedestrian-friendly sidewalk design (M-6.1, 6.2, and 6.3), found in the City of West 12 Sacramento General Plan Mobility Element (City of West Sacramento 2016b). The Proposed 13 Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing 14 measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. No impact would 15 result.
16 b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, 17 subdivision (b), “Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts” (No 18 Impact)
19 The Proposed Project would increase construction vehicle traffic in the short term during 20 construction activities, but operation of project facilities would remain essentially the same 21 as under existing conditions and would result in no additional long-term vehicle trips. As a 22 result, there would be no impact related to vehicle miles traveled as a result of the Proposed 23 Project.
24 c. Result in increased hazards resulting from geometric design features 25 (Less than Significant)
26 During construction, the Proposed Project would not require any planned detours, and 27 existing driveways to residences would be maintained. Construction is expected to have a 28 duration of approximately 18 months overall and would occur in a linear pattern, such that 29 construction activities at any specific location would occur for a limited duration. 30 Construction activities would generate an increase in vehicular traffic associated with 31 construction equipment/trucks and personnel traveling to and from the project site. 32 However, 25-30 construction workers would commute to the area each day and would park 33 nearby; in addition, construction equipment would need to be stored over nights and 34 weekends. Parking worker vehicles and construction equipment on city streets could 35 obstruct traffic on narrow residential streets, make parking access difficult for residents, and 36 create hazards for vehicles and pedestrians related to obstructed views. Although the 37 increase in traffic hazards resulting from construction activities would be temporary, the 38 resulting traffic conditions for neighborhood residents could be significant. Implementation 39 of Mitigation Measure TR-1 (Park and Stage Construction Equipment in Off-street 40 Areas Where Possible) would reduce hazards related to construction traffic by removing 41 the source of potential hazard.
163
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-83 November 2019
1 Mitigation Measure TR-1. Park and Stage Construction Equipment in Off-street 2 Areas Where Possible.
3 Before construction begins, the City shall identify parking lots or other off-street 4 locations within or near the project roadways where construction worker vehicles 5 and construction equipment can be parked without interfering with the safety and 6 visibility of streets in the project area. Such areas may include parking lots of 7 commercial establishments, churches, and other facilities. The City will identify 8 appropriate areas for construction worker vehicles that are near to work zones, as 9 well as staging areas that can be appropriately secured. These areas will be indicated 10 on project plans and specifications.
11 As described in item 3.17(a) above, the Proposed Project includes features that would 12 improve safety for motorized vehicles, nonmotorized transport, and pedestrians traveling in 13 and through the area. Deteriorating pavement and sidewalks would be repaired, reducing the 14 potential for accidents that could result in damage to people or property. Operation of the 15 Proposed Project would not result in any hazardous design features or incompatible uses. 16 Overall, Mitigation Measure TR-1 would avoid potential traffic and pedestrian hazards from 17 on-street crowding and obstructed visibility. This impact would be less than significant 18 with mitigation.
19 d. Result in inadequate emergency access (Less than Significant) 20 Construction of the Proposed Project would not require roadway closure or detours. Because 21 the residential streets are narrow and on-street parking is permitted in the project area, 22 however, construction activities could partially obstruct travel on these streets, which could 23 impair emergency access within the State Streets neighborhood. No road closures or traffic 24 detours are anticipated as a result of project-related construction. As required by City 25 standards, the construction contractor would provide advance notice to emergency service 26 providers regarding the timing, location, and duration of construction activities. The impact 27 on emergency access would be less than significant.
28 164
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-84 November 2019
1 3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Proposed Project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource,
defined in Public Resources Code section
21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.
2 3
4 As discussed in Section 3.5, “Cultural Resources”, the Proposed Project is in the ancestral 5 territory of the Nisenan peoples and the area was likely used by the Patwin. The UAIC and the 6 Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, both tribes with a traditional and cultural affiliation to the Project 7 area, had previously requested consultation with the City on department projects pursuant 8 to PRC § 21080.3.1. As a result, the City sent Project notification letters, dated February 1, 9 2019, to both tribes via U.S. mail with a returned receipt. The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation 10 responded in a letter dated February 19, 2019, stating that the tribe “would like to participate 11 in ongoing consultation.” The City met with Yocha Dehe representatives on April 8, 2019 to 12 discuss tribal concerns such as the need to conduct sensitivity training for construction 13 workers and monitoring of the project for the discovery of buried Native American resources. 14 Yocha Dehe subsequently sent a letter, dated May 2, 2019, in which they requested a meeting 15 to set up a monitoring agreement. A second meeting was held on August 7, 2019. At both 16 meetings, the City agreed to conduct cultural resources sensitivity training for construction 165
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-85 November 2019
1 personnel but did not commit to having archaeological or tribal monitors present during 2 construction since information about the presence of buried resources could not be 3 substantiated. The tribe’s request for monitoring was based on the locations of buried 4 deposits that had previously been discovered during construction within West Sacramento, 5 and because the States Streets area had been paved over since the early to mid-1900s, prior 6 to the advent of conducting environmental review.
7 The UAIC responded in a letter dated March 11, 2019. The letter requested consultation 8 under AB 52, copies of all cultural resources record search materials and environmental 9 documents, and indicated a desire to meet to discuss the project. The City provided the tribe 10 with the available requested information on March 26, 2019. In an email dated March 29, 11 2019, UAIC declined a field review of the project area since the entire area is developed and 12 paved; however, they expressed concern over the presence of a village site near the project 13 area. UAIC ultimately decided against a meeting with the City but offered to forward 14 mitigation measures for consideration. However, additional information was not 15 forthcoming from the tribe. After several unsuccessful attempts to engage the tribe about the 16 mitigation measures, the City requested termination of AB 52 consultation in an email dated 17 August 30, 2019.
18 Table 3-10 lists all those contacted and summarizes the results of the consultation. All 19 correspondence between the NAHC, Native American tribes, and the City is provided in 20 Appendix C.
21 Table 3-10. Native American Consultation
Organization/Tribe Name of Contact Letter Date Comments United Auburn Indian
Community of the
Auburn Rancheria
Gene Whitehouse,
Chairperson
February 1,
2019
03/11/2019: UAIC requested consultation
under AB52, copies of all reports and record
search material. Requested meeting to
discuss the project.
03/26/2019: The City responded via email
requesting preferred dates for a meeting.
03/29/2019: UAIC noted that a site visit
would not be productive since the area is
developed. They also noted the presence of a
village nearby, and offered to send TCR
mitigation measures preferred by the tribe.
04/03/2019: City requested copy of
mitigation measures.
05/08/2019: City followed up with request
for MMs; noted that they will move forward
with the project if they don’t hear from the
tribe.
05/22/2019: City again followed up;
requested response by May 29, 2019.
06/19/2019: The tribe was supplied a link to
the 65% design plans for their review.
166
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-86 November 2019
Organization/Tribe Name of Contact Letter Date Comments 8/30/19: Mitigation measures provided for
review and comment; email sent by City
indicating that, unless additional response
was received, consultation would be
terminated on September 20, 2019.
Yocha Dehe Wintun
Nation
Laverne Bill,
Cultural Resources
Manager
February 1,
2019
02/19/2019 letter: Tribe “would like to
participate in ongoing consultation.” Does
not specifically refer to AB52
03/18/2019: City emailed Laverne to
schedule a meeting.
04/08/2019: Meeting with City and Yocha
Dehe.
05/02/2019: City received letter requesting
meeting to set up monitoring agreement.
05/06/2019: City sent email requesting dates
for a meeting.
06/19/2019: The tribe was supplied a link to
the 65% design plans for their review.
08/07/2019: Meeting with City and Yocha
Dehe.
08/27/2019: Mitigation measures provided
for review and comment. Consultation
concluded.
1 2 a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal 3 cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as 4 either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically 5 defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or 6 object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and 7 that is:
8 i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical 9 Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined 10 in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k) (Less than Significant) 11 No known TCRs that are listed or eligible for listing in the CRHR or a local register of 12 historical resources have been identified within the project area. Therefore, the impact 13 on TCRs under this category would be less than significant. 14 Native American archaeological deposits may be identified during project construction. 15 These resources may be determined to be TCRs and eligible for listing in the California 167
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-87 November 2019
1 Register of Historical Resources. Impacts to TCRs discovered in this manner are discussed 2 under item 3.18(b) below.
3 ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and 4 supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to 5 criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code 6 Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) 7 of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall 8 consider the significance of the resource to a California Native 9 American tribe (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 10 As mentioned above, although the City notified tribes with a traditional and cultural 11 affiliation with the area about the Proposed Project, none of the tribes contacted 12 identified TCRs in the Project area. Furthermore, no TCRs determined by the lead agency, 13 in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant are known to be 14 located in the project vicinity. As a result, it appears that there would be no impact to 15 known TCRs.
16 However, both the UAIC and Yocha Dehe expressed concerns over the potential for buried 17 native American Resources within the Project footprint and it is possible that Native 18 American archaeological remains or Native American human remains that could be 19 determined to be TCRs could be discovered during construction. If such resources are 20 identified, they would be treated according to Mitigation Measure CR-1 or Mitigation 21 Measure CR-2, respectively, as described in Section 3.5, Cultural Resources. 22 Implementation of these mitigation measures would result in a less-than-significant 23 impact with regard to TCRs. As a result, this impact would be less than significant with 24 mitigation.
168
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-88 November 2019
1 3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project:
a. Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water, or
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve
the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple
dry years?
c. Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
d. Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the
attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
2 3
4 The City obtains water supplies from the Sacramento River, which is then treated at its 5 George Kristoff Water Treatment Plant (GKWTP) (City of West Sacramento 2016). The City’s 6 total annual production ranged from 4,490 million gallons (MG)in 2010 to 5,260 MG in 2013. 7 The average daily demand in 2015 was 14.2 million gallons per day (MGD); this value is 8 projected to increase to 23.9 MGD by 2035 (City of West Sacramento 2016). 9 The City collects sewage within its City limits and then conveys it to the Sacramento Regional 10 Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWWTP)for treatment (City of West Sacramento 2018a). The 11 City operates a separate storm sewer system that collects stormwater runoff in its service 169
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-89 November 2019
1 area and discharges it to local waterways, such as the Sacramento River and the deep water 2 ship channel (City of West Sacramento 2018b).
3 The Yolo County Central Landfill is the only active solid waste landfill in Yolo County. This 4 landfill accepts 1,800 tons of solid waste per day and is projected to close operations in 2081 5 (Cal Recycle 2018a).
6 Hazardous waste landfills in California are approaching capacity issues, but the Clean 7 Harbors, LLC facility in Buttonwillow accepts 10,500 tons per day and is not projected to close 8 until 2040 (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery [CalRecycle] 2018b). 9 The Kettleman Hills facility in Kettleman City operated by Chemical Waste Management, Inc. 10 accepts 8,000 tons per day and had a remaining capacity of 6,000,000 cubic yards in 2000 11 (the last year for which information was available) (CalRecycle 2018c). 12 The purpose of the State Streets Water Capacity and Sewer Rehabilitation Project is to correct 13 some of the infrastructure deficiencies identified in the 2015 Water System Master Plan 14 Update (City of West Sacramento 2017a) and 2015 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update (City 15 of West Sacramento 2017b), as well as conducting additional pavement and curb/gutter 16 maintenance activities in the area. The Proposed Project would replace approximately 9,600 17 feet of water main within eight residential streets in the State Streets neighborhood and 18 approximately 36,000 feet of sewer pipelines within the area bounded by Jefferson 19 Boulevard, Park Boulevard, Stone Boulevard, and 15th Street. 20 a. Require the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, 21 wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, 22 natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, or expansion of existing 23 facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause 24 significant environmental effects (No Impact)
25 The Proposed Project would consist of relocation/replacement and construction of new 26 water and sanitary sewer pipelines. The environmental effects of these activities are the 27 subject of this IS/MND. No impact related to stormwater drainage, electrical power, natural 28 gas, or telecommunications facilities would result.
29 b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and 30 reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and 31 multiple dry years (No Impact)
32 The Proposed Project involves repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of water and sewer 33 pipelines in a fully developed urban area. No additional water supply would be needed for 34 construction or operation of the Proposed Project; in fact, the water main repair could result 35 in water savings because existing leaks in the system would be identified and corrected. 36 There would be no impact.
170
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-90 November 2019
1 c. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which 2 serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve 3 the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing 4 commitments (No Impact)
5 The Proposed Project involves repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of water and sewer 6 pipelines in a fully developed urban area. No additional wastewater treatment would be 7 needed for construction or operation of the Proposed Project. There would be no impact. 8 d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess 9 of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the 10 attainment of solid waste reduction goals (Less than Significant) 11 Project construction activities could generate solid waste as a result of excavation and 12 removal of water and sanitary sewer mains, pipelines, and associated materials. Much of this 13 material could potentially be recycled rather than disposed of in a landfill; however, assuming 14 all the material were sent to the landfill, it would not exceed existing landfill’s capacity. As 15 described above, the Yolo County Central Landfill accepts 1,800 tons of solid waste per day 16 and is projected to close operations in 2081. As also described above, hazardous waste 17 landfills in Kettleman City and/or Buttonwillow would have capacity to accept any hazardous 18 waste that would require disposal during project construction activities. 19 Following installation of water and sanitary sewer pipelines and associated street 20 improvements, no additional facilities would be constructed and no solid waste would be 21 generated in the project area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 22 e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction 23 statutes and regulations related to solid waste (Less than Significant) 24 The California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989 (PRC, Division 30) 25 requires all California cities and counties to implement programs to reduce, recycle, and 26 compost wastes by at least 50 percent by 2000 (PRC § 41780). The State, acting through the 27 California Integrated Waste Management Board, determines compliance with this mandate 28 based on jurisdictions’ per-capita disposal rates. In accordance with the CIWMA, the City 29 would seek to divert at least 50% of the Project’s solid waste from the landfill; the majority 30 of excavated soil would be returned to the source trenches, and replaced piping would be 31 recycled where possible. This impact would be less than significant. 171
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-91 November 2019
1 3.20 WILDFIRE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or
lands classified as very high fire hazard severity
zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to, pollutant concentrations
from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c. Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or
that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
2 3
4 The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has classified the City 5 of West Sacramento as a Local Responsibility Area – Unzoned with regard to fire hazard 6 severity (CAL FIRE 2007). In 2008, CAL FIRE determined that Yolo County has no Very High 7 Fire Hazard Severity Zones (CAL FIRE 2008). Therefore, the questions in Section 3.20, 8 “Wildfire,” of the Environmental Checklist do not apply and the Proposed Project would have 9 no impact related to very high fire hazard severity zones. 172
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-92 November 2019
1 3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-thanSignificant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self- sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plan or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
2 3 a. Effects on environmental quality, fish or wildlife, and historic 4 resources (Less than Significant with Mitigation)
5 Implementation of the Proposed Project would not adversely affect sensitive natural 6 communities or special‐status animals, but would have the potential to affect nesting birds 7 and mammals and previously undiscovered cultural resources and/or human remains. With 8 implementation of the mitigation measures identified in this IS/MND, compliance with City 9 General Plan policies, and application of standard BMPs during construction, development of 10 the Project would not:
11 ▪ Degrade the quality of the environment;
12 ▪ Substantially reduce or impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species; 13 ▪ Cause fish or wildlife populations to drop below self‐sustaining levels; 14 ▪ Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 173
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-93 November 2019
1 ▪ Reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 2 ▪ Eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or 3 prehistory.
4 Therefore, the Proposed Project’s impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 5 b. Cumulative impacts (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 6 The impacts of the Proposed Project would be individually limited and not cumulatively 7 considerable. The Proposed Project would involve upgrading water and sanitary sewer 8 infrastructure, rehabilitating water and sewer mains, and repairing and/or replacing curbs, 9 gutters, sidewalks, and retrofits required to comply with the ADA and replace deficient and 10 failed street sections. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the Proposed 11 Project would be less than significant with mitigation recommended throughout this 12 IS/MND. When viewed in conjunction with other closely related past, present, or reasonably 13 foreseeable future projects, development of this Proposed Project would not make a 14 significant contribution to significant cumulative impacts. 15 c. Effects on human beings (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 16 The purpose of the Proposed Project is to upgrade water and sanitary sewer infrastructure, 17 replace water and sewer mains, replace or rehabilitate aging sewer pipelines as needed, and 18 repair and/or remove and replace curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and retrofits required to comply 19 with the ADA and replace deficient and failed street sections. As described in this IS/MND, 20 implementation of the Proposed Project could result in temporary biology, cultural, 21 geology/soils/seismicity, noise, transportation, and tribal cultural resource impacts during 22 the construction period. Implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this 23 IS/MND, compliance with City regulations, and application of standard construction practices 24 would ensure that the Proposed Project would not result in environmental impacts that 25 would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse impacts on human beings. The impact 26 would be less than significant with mitigation recommended throughout this IS/MND. 27 174
City of West Sacramento 3. Environmental Checklist
State Streets Infrastructure Projects
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
3-94 November 2019
1 This page intentionally left blank
175
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 4-1 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 Chapter 4
2 Report Preparers
3 City of West Sacramento
4 Capital Projects & Transportation Department
5 1110 West Capitol Avenue, 1st Floor
6 West Sacramento, CA 95691
7 Candido Ramirez Senior Civil Engineer
Amber Wallace Associate Civil Engineer
8 Horizon Water and Environment, LLC
9 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500
10 Sacramento, CA 95814
11 Tom Engels, Ph.D. Principal-in-Charge
Debra Lilly Senior Associate II, Project Manager
Janis Offermann Director, Cultural Resources
Kara Brunzell Senior Associate I, Architectural History Carley Dutra Associate, Biological Resources
Linda Littleton Technical Editor
Lorrie Jo Williams Graphic Artist
176
City of West Sacramento 4. Report Preparers
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 4-2 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 This page intentionally left blank
177
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 5-1 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 Chapter 5
2 References
3 Chapter 1, Introduction
4 No references cited.
5 Chapter 2, Project Description
6 City of West Sacramento. 2017a. 2015 Water System Master Plan Update. Prepared by 7 Carollo.
8 City of West Sacramento. 2017b. 2015 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update. Prepared by West 9 Yost Associates.
10 City of West Sacramento. No date. Welcome to the Free Tree Workshop. Available at:
11 www.cityofwestsacramento.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=7883. Accessed October 12 10, 2019.
13 Domenichelli and Associates. 2018. Design Criteria Technical Memorandum. Prepared for 14 City of West Sacramento Public Works Department.
15 Youngdahl Consulting Group. 2018. Geotechnical Engineering Study for State Streets Water 16 Capacity and Sewer Rehabilitation Project. Prepared for Domenichelli and 17 Associates.
18 Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis
19 Section 3.1, Aesthetics
20 California Department of Transportation. 2018. Scenic Highways – Frequently Asked 21 Questions. Available at: dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture22 and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways-faq2. 23 Accessed September 3, 2019.
24 California Department of Transportation. 2019. California Scenic Highway Program – 25 ArcGIS Map. Available at: www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html? 26 useExisting=1&layers=f0259b1ad0fe4093a5604c9b838a486a&layerId=0. Accessed 27 September 3, 2019.
28 Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation. 178
City of West Sacramento 5. References
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 5-2 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 Section 3.2, Agriculture and Forestry Resources
2 California Department of Conservation. 2017. Yolo County Important Farmland 2016. 3 Published July 2017. Available at: www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/ 4 Yolo.aspx. Accessed September 3, 2019.
5 CDOC. See California Department of Conservation.
6 Section 3.3, Air Quality
7 Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. 2007. Handbook for Assessing and Mitigating 8 Air Quality Impacts. Available at: www.ysaqmd.org/wp-content/uploads/2016 9 /06/CEQAHandbook2007.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2019.
10 Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. 2013. PM2.5 Implementation/Maintenance 11 Plan and Redesignation Request for Sacramento PM2.5 Nonattainment Area. 12 October. Available at: www.ysaqmd.org/wp-content/uploads/Planning/Sac-Region13 PM2.5-Maintenance-Plan.pdf. Accessed September 3, 2019. 14 Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. 2018. Attainment Status Table. Available at:
15 www.ysaqmd.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Attainment_Detailed.jpg. 16 Accessed August 10, 2019.
17 Youngdahl Consulting Group. 2018. Geotechnical Engineering Study for State Streets Water 18 Capacity and Sewer Rehabilitation Project. October. Prepared for the City of West 19 Sacramento.
20 YSAQMD. See Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. 21 Section 3.4, Biological Resources
22 City of West Sacramento. 2016. General Plan 2035 Policy Document. Approved November 23 2016. Available at: www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/ 24 community-development/planning-division/general-plan-2035. Accessed January 25 20, 2019.
26 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019. California Natural Diversity Database. 27 Available: www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB. Accessed March 18, 2019. 28 California Native Plant Society. 2019. Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. Available:
29 www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed March 18, 2019.
30 California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup. 2019. EcoAtlas. Available at: ecoatlas.org. 31 Accessed September 17, 2019.
32 CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 33 CNPS. See California Native Plant Society.
179
City of West Sacramento 5. References
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 5-3 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 Fettke, Kim. Bat biologist. April 29, 2019. – Email communication with Carley Dutra, 2 Horizon Water and Environment, regarding bats in the project area. 3 San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). 2017. “California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI) 4 version 0.3.” Available at: www.sfei.org/data/california-aquatic-resource-inventory5 cari-vers. Accessed July 9, 2019. 6 Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Recommended timing and 7 methodology for Swainson’s Hawk nesting surveys in California’s Central Valley. 8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) 9 Resource List. Provided by ECOS – the Environmental Online Conservation System. 10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available: ecos.fws.gov/ipac. Accessed March 18, 11 2019.
12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019b. Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered 13 Species. Map. Available: fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id= 14 9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77#!. Accessed September 17, 2019. 15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2019c. National Wetlands Inventory. Available:
16 www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html. Accessed September 17, 2019. 17 USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
18 Weller, T. J., T. J. Rodhouse, D. J. Neubaum, P. D. Ormsbee, R. D. Dixon, D. L. Popp, et al. 2018. 19 A review of bat hibernacula across the western United States: Implications for 20 white-nose syndrome surveillance and management. PLoS ONE 13(10):e0205647. 21 Available: doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205647. Accessed September 23, 2019. 22 West Coast Arborists. 2018. Arborist Report, West Sacramento, CA – State Streets Project 23 Inventory. December 17. Prepared for the City of West Sacramento. 24 Western Bat Working Group. 2013. Species Matrix. Available: wbwg.org/matrices/species25 matrix/. Accessed September 17, 2019. 26 Yolo Habitat Conservancy. 2019. Overview of the Yolo HCP/NCCP. Available at:
27 https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/8f41bd_b1473daf3a204203a0af03da879411c1.pd 28 f. Accessed September 11, 2019.
29 Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., and K. E. Mayer, (eds.). 1988. California’s wildlife. 30 Volume 1. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, California 31 Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
32 Section 3.5, Cultural Resources
33 Bennyhoff, J. A. 1977. Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. In Center for Archaeological 34 Research at Davis Publication 5. University of California, Davis. 180
City of West Sacramento 5. References
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 5-4 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 Coast Banker Publishing Co. 1913. Coast Banker, Volume 10 (January – June 2013). Coast 2 Banker Publishing Co., San Francisco, California. Available at: babel.hathitrust.org/ 3 cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112064679704. Accessed February 11, 2019. 4 Corbett, M. 1993a.DPR Series 523 Form for the State Streets Neighborhood (P-57-000739) 5 in West Sacramento, California. On file at the Northwest Information Center of the 6 California Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University, 7 Rohnert Park, California.
8 Corbett, M. 1993b. DPR Series 523 Form for 10 Alameda Boulevard (P-57-000742) in West 9 Sacramento, California. On file at the Northwest Information Center of the California 10 Historical Resources Information System, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, 11 California.
12 Johnson, P. J. 1978. Patwin. In California, Vol. 8, Handbook of North American Indians, pp. 13 350-360. R. F. Heizer, editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 14 Kroeber, A. L. 1932. The Patwin and Their Neighbors. University of California Publications in 15 America Archaeology and Ethnology 29(4):253-423. Berkeley. 16 Kyle, D. E., M. B. Hoover, H. E. Rensch, E. G. Rensch, and W. N. Abeloe. 2002. Historic Spots in 17 California. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 18 Larkey, J., and S. Waters. 1987. Yolo County: Land of Changing Patterns. Windsor 19 Publications, Inc., Northridge, California.
20 The Sacramento Bee. 2015. Skulls, bones unearthed in West Sacramento are from American 21 Indians. Published October 8, 2015. Available at: www.sacbee.com/news/ 22 local/article38100066.html. Accessed February 11, 2019. 23 The Sacramento Bee. 2018. Yolo County files suit against developers that built on Native 24 American burial site improperly. Published July 14, 2018. Available at:
25 www.sacbee.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article214859865.html. 26 Accessed February 11, 2019.
27 Tremaine, K. J. 2008. Investigations of a Deeply Buried Early and Middle Holocene Site (CA28 SAC-38) for the City Hall Expansion Project, Sacramento, California. Prepared for the 29 City of Sacramento.
30 Tremaine, K. J., and G. Farris. 2009. Rediscovering a Legacy: Archaeological Monitoring 31 Report for the Sacramento Regional transit District Light Rail Extension Project. 32 Prepared for the City of Sacramento.
33 United States Census Bureau. 2010. Census 2010 for West Sacramento, California. Available 34 at: factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml?src=bkmk. 35 Accessed February 11, 2019.
36 United States Department of Agriculture. 2019. Natural Resource Conservation Service Web 37 Soil Survey for West Sacramento, California. Available at:
38 websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov. Accessed February 8, 2019. 181
City of West Sacramento 5. References
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 5-5 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 United States Geological Survey. 1907. Davisville, CA 7.5” topographic quadrangle. Available 2 at: historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/. Accessed February 8, 2019. 3 United States Geological Survey. 1916. Lovdal, CA 7.5” topographic quadrangle. Available at:
4 historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/. Accessed February 8, 2019. 5 United States Geological Survey. 1948. Sacramento West, CA 7.5” topographic quadrangle. 6 Available at: historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/. Accessed February 8, 2019. 7 USDA. See United States Department of Agriculture.
8 USGS. See United States Geological Survey.
9 Walters, S. 1987. West Sacramento: The Roots of a New City. Yolo County Historical Society, 10 Woodland, California.
11 West Coast Arborists. 2018. Arborist Report: State Streets Project Inventory, West 12 Sacramento, CA. Report prepared for the City of West Sacramento. 13 West Sacramento Historical Society. 2004. Images of America: West Sacramento. Arcadia 14 Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.
15 Wilson, N. L., and A. H. Towne. 1978. Nisenan. In California, Vol. 8, Handbook of North 16 American Indians, pp. 387-397. R. F. Heizer, editor. Smithsonian Institution, 17 Washington, D.C.
18 Section 3.6, Energy
19 None cited.
20 Section 3.7, Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
21 City of West Sacramento. 2016. City of West Sacramento General Plan Update Draft 22 Environmental Impact Report. Available at: www.cityofwestsacramento.org/ 23 government/departments/community-development/planning-division/general24 plan-2035. Accessed September 16, 2019. 25 Youngdahl Consulting Group. 2018. Geotechnical Engineering Study for State Streets Water 26 Capacity and Sewer Rehabilitation Project. Prepared for Domenichelli and 27 Associates.
28 Youngdahl Consulting Group. 2019. Pavement Design and Soil Contamination Evaluation. 29 Prepared for Domenichelli and Associates.
30 Section 3.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
31 Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. 2007. Handbook for Assessing and Mitigating 32 Air Quality Impacts. Available at: www.ysaqmd.org/wp-content/uploads/2016 33 /06/CEQAHandbook2007.pdf. Accessed August 10, 2019.
182
City of West Sacramento 5. References
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 5-6 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 YSAQMD. See Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District. 2 Section 3.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
3 City of West Sacramento. 2016. City of West Sacramento General Plan Update Draft 4 Environmental Impact Report. Available at: www.cityofwestsacramento.org/ 5 government/departments/community-development/planning-division/general6 plan-2035. Accessed September 16, 2019. 7 Youngdahl Consulting Group. 2018. Geotechnical Engineering Study for State Streets Water 8 Capacity and Sewer Rehabilitation Project. Prepared for Domenichelli and 9 Associates.
10 Youngdahl Consulting Group. 2019. Pavement Design and Soil Contamination Evaluation. 11 Prepared for Domenichelli and Associates.
12 Section 3.10, Hydrology and Water Quality
13 City of West Sacramento. 2016. City of West Sacramento General Plan Update Draft 14 Environmental Impact Report. Available at: www.cityofwestsacramento.org/ 15 government/departments/community-development/planning-division/general16 plan-2035. Accessed September 16, 2019. 17 LSA Associates. 2019. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – West Capitol Avenue 18 Road Rehabilitation Project, West Sacramento, California. Prepared for the City of 19 West Sacramento.
20 Section 3.11, Land Use and Planning
21 None cited.
22 Section 3.12, Mineral Resources
23 City of West Sacramento. 2016. City of West Sacramento General Plan Update Draft 24 Environmental Impact Report. Available at: www.cityofwestsacramento.org/ 25 government/departments/community-development/planning-division/general26 plan-2035. Accessed September 16, 2019. 27 Section 3.13, Noise
28 California Department of Transportation. 2009. Technical Noise Supplement. Available:
29 www.dot.ca.gov/env/noise/resources.html. Accessed September 19, 2019. 30 Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation. 31 City of West Sacramento. 2016. General Plan 2035 Policy Document. Approved November 32 2016. Available at: www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/ 33 community-development/planning-division/general-plan-2035. Accessed January 34 20, 2019.
183
City of West Sacramento 5. References
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 5-7 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 Federal Highway Administration. 2018. Construction Noise Handbook. Available at:
2 www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook0 3 9.cfm. Accessed September 19, 2019.
4 Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 5 Available at:
6 www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual 7 .pdf. Accessed September 19, 2019.
8 FTA. See Federal Transit Administration.
9 LSA Associates. 2019. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – West Capitol Avenue 10 Road Rehabilitation Project, West Sacramento, California. Prepared for the City of 11 West Sacramento.
12 Section 3.14, Population and Housing
13 None cited.
14 Section 3.15, Public Services
15 Carollo Engineers. 2017. 2015 Water System Master Plan Update. Final November 2017. 16 Section 3.16, Recreation
17 Local Wiki West Sacramento. 2019. West Sacramento – Parks. Available at: localwiki.org/ 18 westsac/Parks. Accessed September 4, 2019.
19 Section 3.17, Transportation
20 City of West Sacramento. 2016a. City of West Sacramento General Plan Update Draft 21 Environmental Impact Report. Available at: www.cityofwestsacramento.org/ 22 government/departments/community-development/planning-division/general23 plan-2035. Accessed September 16, 2019. 24 City of West Sacramento. 2016b. General Plan 2035 Policy Document. Approved November 25 2016. Available at: www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/ 26 community-development/planning-division/general-plan-2035. Accessed January 27 20, 2019.
28 Section 3.18, Tribal Cultural Resources
29 None cited.
30 Section 3.19, Utilities and Service Systems
31 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2018a. Facility/Site Summary 32 Details: Yolo County Central Landfill (57-AA-0001). Available at:
33 www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/57-AA-0001/Detail/. Accessed 34 September 16, 2019.
184
City of West Sacramento 5. References
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 5-8 November 2019 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
1 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2018b. Facility/Site Summary 2 Details: Clean Harbors Buttonwillow LLC (15-AA-0257). Available at:
3 www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/15-AA-0257/Detail/. Accessed 4 September 16, 2019.
5 California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2018c. Facility/Site Summary 6 Details: Kettleman Hills – B18 Nonhaz Codisposal (16-AA-0023). Available at:
7 www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/16-AA-0023/Detail/. Accessed 8 September 16, 2019.
9 CalRecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 10 City of West Sacramento. 2016. City of West Sacramento General Plan Update Draft 11 Environmental Impact Report. Available at: www.cityofwestsacramento.org/ 12 government/departments/community-development/planning-division/general13 plan-2035. Accessed September 16, 2019. 14 City of West Sacramento. 2017a. 2015 Water System Master Plan Update. Prepared by 15 Carollo.
16 City of West Sacramento. 2017b. 2015 Sanitary Sewer Master Plan Update. Prepared by West 17 Yost Associates.
18 City of West Sacramento. 2018a. City Utility Services. Available at:
19 www.cityofwestsacramento.org/city/depts/pw/utilityservices.asp. Accessed 20 September 16, 2019.
21 City of West Sacramento. 2018b. Stormwater FAQs. Available at:
22 www.cityofwestsacramento.org/city/depts/pw/public_works_operations/environ 23 mental_services_division/storm_water/stormwater_faqs.asp. Accessed September 24 16, 2019.
25 Section 3.20, Wildfire
26 CAL FIRE. 2007. Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA – Yolo County. Fire and Resource 27 Assessment Program. Available at: osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6854/ 28 fhszl06_1_map57.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2019.
29 Section 3.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance
30 None cited.
185
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 1 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the
State Streets Infrastructure Project
This mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP) identifies the mitigation measures identified in the City of West Sacramento’s (City’s) State Streets Infrastructure Projects (Proposed Project) Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration IS/MND) For each mitigation measure, the MMRP identifies monitoring and reporting actions that shall be carried out and the applicable schedule for monitoring activities. This MMRP also includes a column where responsible parties can check off monitoring and reporting actions as they are completed.
As lead agency, the City will be responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures identified in this IS/MND are fully implemented. Some mitigation measures would be implemented by the contractor(s) on behalf of the City. Contract documents for the Proposed Project will identify the obligations of the contractor, including relevant mitigation measures. The City will require that the contractor provide documentation that the contractor has adequately implemented all contractual obligations, including applicable mitigation measures.
Thus, in the descriptions of the mitigation measures provided in below, while the City may be specifically referenced in implementing a mitigation measure (i.e., where the measure states “The City shall”), this is intended to be inclusive of the contractor’s role in implementing certain mitigation measures during construction or as part of design.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
City City of West Sacramento
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
Dbh diameter at breast height
DSH diameter at standard height
HCP/NCCP Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan
IS/MND Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
MLD Most Likely Descendent
MMRP mitigation monitoring and reporting plan
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
Proposed Project State Streets Infrastructure Projects
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
References
Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Recommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s Hawk nesting surveys in California’s Central Valley. 186
City of West Sacramento
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 2 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
This page intentionally left blank
187
City of West Sacramento
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 3 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
1 Table D-1. Mitigation Measures and Implementation Requirements Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Action Monitoring Schedule
Completion
Date and Initials
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1a. Compliance with the Requirements of the Yolo HCP/NCCP for Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite The Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) contains avoidance and minimization measures that the City of West Sacramento shall adopt for Swainson’s hawk and whitetailed kite. Specifically, implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Measure 15 in the Yolo HCP/NCCP will:
▪ Identify and quantify (in acres) Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite habitat in and within 1,320 feet of the project footprint, and identify suitable nest trees.
▪ Avoid potential nesting trees, with 1,320-foot setbacks from the trees during nesting, to the extent practicable.
▪ During construction, if activities would occur within 1,320 feet of nesting habitat between March 15 and August 30, preconstruction activities would be conducted for active nests consistent with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000). For operation and maintenance, if activities involve pruning or removal of suitable nest trees, preconstruction activities will be conducted for active nests, consistent with the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000).
▪ For construction activities occurring from March 15 to August 30, no activities will occur within 1,320 feet of active nests, unless a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active or the Yolo Habitat Conservancy, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) agree to a lesser buffer distance. For operations and maintenance, if occupied nest sites are present within 1,320 feet, tree pruning and removal will be deferred until the nest is no longer being used by adults and young.
1. Retain a qualified biologist
2. Conduct surveys for Swainson’s
Hawk and White-tailed Kite
within a minimum 1,32-foot
radius around construction areas.
3. Establish buffers around active
nests.
4. Monitor nests to determine when
construction activities can begin
within the buffer.
1. Before
construction
2. Before
construction
3. Before
construction
4. During
construction
188
City of West Sacramento
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 4 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Action Monitoring Schedule
Completion
Date and Initials
Mitigation Measure BIO-1b. Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Birds and Implement Non-disturbance Buffer Areas.
To the extent feasible, all vegetation removal shall occur between September 1 and January 31, outside the bird/raptor nesting season, to avoid potential impacts on nesting birds. If construction activities (including staging and tree or vegetation removal) will occur during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31), the City shall retain a qualified wildlife biologist to conduct focused surveys for active bird nests in project areas currently under construction and within a 250- foot buffer no more than 7 days before initiation of construction activities. If no work occurs for a period of 5 days during the nesting season, repeat surveys must be performed before work within 250 feet of suitable nesting substrate is resumed. If the survey indicates that no active nests are present, no further mitigation shall be required.
1. Retain a qualified biologist
2. Conduct a nesting bird survey
within 2 weeks before
construction.
3. If a lapse of 2 weeks or longer
occurs during construction,
conduct another focused survey
before construction is reinitiated.
4. If birds are found, establish an
appropriate buffer.
5. Monitor nests to determine when
construction activities can begin
within the buffer.
1. Before
construction
2. Before
construction
3. During
construction
4. Before and
during
construction
5. During
construction
Mitigation Measure BIO-2a. Remove and Disturb Trees Outside of the Maternity and Winter Seasons
To avoid disturbing or eliminating occupied maternity roosts or winter roosts, all tree removal and pruning shall occur outside of the maternity season (May 1 – August 31) and winter season (November 1 – March 1) to the extent feasible.
1. Identify occupied roosts by
conducting Mitigation Measure
1b, described above.
2. Schedule tree removal and
pruning in those areas to occur
during March 1-April 30 or
September 1-October 31.
1. Before
construction
2. During
construction
Mitigation Measure BIO-2b. Conduct a Habitat Assessment and Surveys for Bat Roosts
Before the commencement of tree removal, a CDFW-approved biologist with experience identifying bat roosts will conduct a daytime habitat suitability assessment to determine if any of the trees in the project area that may be removed, trimmed, or pruned contain potential colonial bat roosting (e.g., large tree cavities, basal hollows, loose or peeling bark, larger snags, palm trees with intact thatch) or indications of bat use (e.g., occupancy, guano, staining, smells, or sounds). Each tree shall be rated on a scale of 1-3: 1 = unsuitable/low suitability; 2 = potentially suitable; and, 3 = identifiable roost. If all trees within the project area are rated 1, no additional measures will be taken. If any trees are rated 2, a CDFW-approved biologist with experience surveying
1. Include lighting requirements in
construction documents
2. Inspect construction sites on a
regular basis for compliance
1. During
construction
2. During
construction
189
City of West Sacramento
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 5 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Action Monitoring Schedule
Completion
Date and Initials
tree roosts shall conduct evening bat surveys at potential sites to assess roosting patterns during the maternity season. Evening emergence surveys will be conducted using night-vision technology and acoustic monitoring from one half hour before sunset to at least 1 hour after sunset for a minimum of two nights. The survey methodology will be submitted and approved by CDFW prior to the survey. If the bat biologist determines that that any of the trees rated 2 are identifiable roosts, their rating will be changed to 3. If any trees are rated 3, the City shall implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2c.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2c. Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Bats and Bat Roosts
The City shall avoid removal and disturbance of all bat roosts within the project area to the greatest extent feasible. If it is not possible to avoid the disturbance or removal of all roosts, alternative impact minimization measures will be developed according to specific site conditions and degree of impact (e.g., species, size of colony, season of use). These measures may include roost exclusion prior to the sensitive seasons of use, tiered tree pruning or removal under the supervision of a qualified biologist, and compensatory roost replacement. A plan detailing the methods and specifications of the minimization measures will be prepared by a qualified bat biologist and submitted to CDFW for approval prior to implementation, and prior to the start of tree removal or other construction disturbance.
1. Retain a qualified biologist
2. Conduct surveys for bats during
maternity season.
3. If bats are using the construction
area, develop and implement
measures with CDFW approval to
minimize impacts on roosts or
exclude bats from roost sites.
4. Monitor roosts to determine
when construction activities can
begin within the buffer.
1. Before
construction
2. Before
construction
3. Before
construction
4. During
construction
Mitigation Measure BIO-2d. Prepare Bat Roost Compensation Plan and Provide Replacements for Roosts That Cannot Be Avoided
If bat roosts cannot be avoided or if it is determined that construction activities may cause roost abandonment, the City shall refrain from such activities until roost sites have been replaced.
For replacement of roost sites established in the existing trees, the City shall retain a qualified bat biologist to develop a Bat Roost Compensation Plan that addresses the use of the trees, identifies appropriate compensation measures commensurate with the size of the colony, and provides for no net loss in roosting areas for the bats.
1. Retain a qualified bat biologist
2. Based on the results of bat
surveys (Mitigation Measure BIO2c), identify roost sites that require replacement
3. Develop and implement
measures with CDFW approval to
replace roost sites and
appropriate compensation
measures.
1. Before
construction
2. Before
construction
3. Before and
during
construction
190
City of West Sacramento
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 6 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Action Monitoring Schedule
Completion
Date and Initials
Mitigation Measure BIO-3a: Minimize Potential Impacts on Trees Upon receiving and reviewing detailed specifications (site plans) for the Proposed Project’s construction activities, the City shall provide plans to the arborist for review to identify with more certainty the trees that are likely to be affected by construction. During construction, the arborist will work on-site with City staff to identify which trees will need to be removed or trimmed/pruned. Existing trees will be avoided and retained where practicable, using techniques such as the following:
▪ Design sidewalks to meander around the existing trees. ▪ Install water lines above or below tree roots to avoid the need to trim roots.
▪ Because vertical placement of sewer lines is not flexible, rehabilitation of sewer lines rather than replacements will be implemented when possible.
The City shall mitigate for trees that are removed by implementing Mitigation Measure BIO-3b.
1. Retain an arborist to review site
plans and identify those likely to
require removal or trimming/
pruning.
2. Coordinate construction plans
with arborist input on avoidance.
3. Monitor construction activities in
the vicinity of trees that are likely
to be affected.
1. During project
planning
2. During project
planning
3. During
construction
Mitigation Measure BIO 3b: Implement Mitigation for Removed Trees All impacts on trees resulting from trimming, pruning, or removal due to construction activities must be reviewed by a City Tree Administrator if the tree’s diameter at breast height (dbh) is greater than 2 feet for non‐ native oak and 16 inches for native oak. If the City’s arborist indicates that a tree must be removed, the homeowner will be notified of the decision and may choose to obtain a free replacement tree through the City Parks and Recreation Department’s West Sacramento Tree Program (information is available at www.cityofwestsacramento.org/ government/departments/parks-recreation/trees). The homeowner may choose from the City’s list of replacement trees: Emerald Sunshine (Ulmus propinqua), Golden Rain (Koelreuteria paniculata), Trident maple (Acer buergerianum), Texas red oak (Quercus buckleyi), Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), or Cork Oak (Quercus suber). These trees have been selected because they are drought resistant and utility-friendly (i.e., their height and branching structure are not likely to interfere with
1. Contact property owners to
coordinate on desired mitigation.
2. Provide tree maintenance
training through the City’s Free
Tree Workshop.
3. Coordinate removal and planting
of trees to occur during periods
identified in MM BIO-2a.
4. During
construction
5. After
construction
6. After
construction
191
City of West Sacramento
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 7 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Action Monitoring Schedule
Completion
Date and Initials
power lines, and their root system is not likely to affect underground pipelines or sidewalks).
Replacement trees will be planted by the City’s arborist in coordination with the homeowner.
Trees will be replaced at a 1:1 ratio (i.e., one replacement tree for each tree removed). Replacement trees will have a 24-inch-box tree to accelerate the processing of achieving the size of the removed tree. If a 24-inch-box tree is not available, 15-gallon trees will be used.
Where a street tree must be removed, the replacement tree will not be planted within 5 feet of any fire hydrant and will be placed 4 feet outside of any drainage, sewer, or water easement and sidewalk, as determined by the City Capital Projects & Transportation Department.
All removed trees will be chipped and used as mulch in city parks and/or made available to residents at the City’s corporation yard at 1801 West Capitol Avenue.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training
A cultural resources awareness training program will be provided to all construction personnel active on the Project site during earth moving activities. The training will be provided prior to the initiation of ground disturbing activities. The training will be developed and conducted in coordination with a qualified archaeologist meeting the U.S. Secretary of Interior professional standards in archaeology, as defined in 48 Code of Federal Register Parts 44720–44723, and a Native American tribe, who has participated in consultations with the City, will be invited to participate in the training. The program will include relevant information regarding sensitive cultural resources, including applicable regulations, protocols for avoidance, and consequences of violating State laws and regulations. The worker cultural resources awareness program will also describe appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for resources that have the potential to be located on the Project site and will outline what to do and whom to contact if any
1. Retain a qualified archaeologist.
2. Prepare cultural resources
awareness training program.
3. Contact and coordinate with
Yocha Dehe to participate if
desired.
4. Schedule and provide worker
training prior to initial grounddisturbing activities.
1. Before
construction
2. Before
construction
3. Before
construction
4. During
construction
192
City of West Sacramento
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 8 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Action Monitoring Schedule
Completion
Date and Initials
potential archaeological resources or artifacts are encountered. The program will also underscore the requirement for confidentiality and culturally appropriate treatment of any finds of significance to Native Americans, consistent with Native American tribal values.
The Yocha Dehe will also be invited to participate in the Project preconstruction meeting, and the tribe will be kept aware of the Project construction schedule.
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Immediately Halt Construction if Cultural Resources Are Discovered, Evaluate All Identified Cultural Resources for Eligibility for Inclusion in the CRHR, and Implement Appropriate Mitigation Measures for Eligible Resources.
Construction monitoring of ground disturbing activities by archaeological or Native American monitors is not currently planned by the City. However, tribal representatives from a local traditionally and culturally affiliated tribe are invited to visit the construction site at any time to observe construction excavation, as long as the City project manager is notified in advance.
If evidence of any subsurface archaeological features or deposits are discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities, such as structural features, bone or shell fragments, flaked or ground stone artifacts, historic-era artifacts, or architectural remains, are encountered during any project construction activities, work shall be suspended immediately at the location of the find and within a radius of at least 50 feet and the City will be contacted. The City will then contact a qualified archaeologist who meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s professional standards and a Native American representative from a traditionally and culturally affiliated tribe, as appropriate (i.e., a Native American site rather than a historic era site), to assess the significance of the find and make recommendations for further evaluation and treatment as necessary.
All cultural resources accidentally uncovered during construction within the project site shall be evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Resource evaluations will be conducted by individuals who meet the U.S. Secretary of the
1. Retain a qualified archaeologist
and coordinate with tribal
representatives
2. If archaeological features or
deposits are discovered, stop
work and contact the City.
3. Archaeologist and tribal
representative will assess the
significance of the find and make
recommendations for evaluation
and treatment.
4. Evaluate CRHR eligibility of any
discovered resources.
5. If eligible resources will be
affected, develop and implement
additional mitigation.
1. Before
construction
2. During
construction
3. During
construction
4. During
construction
5. During
construction
193
City of West Sacramento
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 9 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Action Monitoring Schedule
Completion
Date and Initials
Interior’s professional standards in archaeology and a Native American representative of a traditionally and culturally affiliated tribe, as appropriate. If any of the resources meet the eligibility criteria identified in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 or CEQA Section 21083.2(g), mitigation measures will be developed and implemented in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b) before construction resumes.
For resources eligible for listing in the CRHR that would be rendered ineligible by the effects of project construction, additional mitigation measures will be implemented. Mitigation measures for archaeological resource, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b), may include (but are not limited to) avoidance; incorporation of sites within parks, greenspace, or other open space; capping the site; deeding the site into a permanent conservation easement; or data recovery excavation. Mitigation measures for archaeological resources shall be developed in consultation with responsible agencies and, as appropriate, interested parties such as Native American tribes. Native American consultation is required if an archaeological site is determined to be a Tribal Cultural Resource. Implementation of the approved mitigation would be required before resuming any construction activities with potential to affect identified eligible resources at the site.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Immediately Halt Construction if Human Remains Are Discovered and Implement Applicable Provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5.
If human remains are discovered during the Proposed Project’s construction activities, the requirements of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. Potentially damaging excavation shall halt on the Project site within a minimum radius of 100 feet of the remains, and the County coroner shall be notified, as well as the City’s project manager. The coroner is required to examine all discoveries of human remains within 48 hours of receiving notice of a discovery on private or state lands (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5[b]). If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, he or she must contact the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) by phone within 24 hours of making that
1. Retain a qualified archaeologist
2. In the event that human remains
are encountered, halt work and
contact the County Coroner.
3. If discovered remains are those
of a Native American, he or she
must contact the NAHC by phone
within 24 hours of making that
determination.
4. NAHC shall identify a MLD, upon
which this person shall be
notified and given at least 48
hours to inspect the site and
1. Before
construction
2. During
preparation of
plans and
specifications
3. During
construction
4. During
construction
5. During
construction
194
City of West Sacramento
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 10 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Action Monitoring Schedule
Completion
Date and Initials
determination (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050[c]).
Pursuant to the provisions of Pub. Res. Code Section 5097.98, NAHC shall identify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD designated by NAHC shall have at least 48 hours to inspect the site and propose treatment and disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods. The State shall work with the MLD to ensure that the remains are removed to a protected location and treated with dignity and respect.
Native American human remains may also be determined to be tribal cultural resources. The Yolo County coroner will determine the treatment of human remains that are not of Native American origin.
Such treatment may include archaeological excavation.
propose treatment and
disposition of the remains and
any associated grave goods.
5. Cooperation with MLD is
required.
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Mitigation Measure GEO-1. Conduct Construction Monitoring During Clearing and Grading to Provide Supplemental Recommendations if Necessary
Construction monitoring is a continuation of the findings and recommendations provided in the Geotechnical Report. The City shall involve the project engineer in all grading activities to provide supplemental recommendations as field conditions dictate. The project engineer will be notified at least 2 working days before site clearing or grading operations commence, and will observe the overexcavation of existing fills or loose/soft soils and provide consultation to the grading contractor in the field.
1. Retain a project engineer.
2. Inform the project engineer
2 working days before site
clearing and grading operations.
3. Consult with project engineer
regarding treatment measures
for existing fills and loose/soft
soils.
1. Before
construction
2. Before and
during
construction
3. During
construction
Mitigation Measure GEO-2. Halt Excavation If Paleontological Resources Are Encountered, Evaluate the Find, and Implement Measures to Avoid Impacts
If paleontological resources are encountered during Project excavation and no monitor is present, all ground‐disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find shall be redirected to other areas until a qualified paleontologist can be retained to evaluate the find and make recommendations for additional paleontological mitigation, which may include paleontological monitoring; collection of observed resources; preservation, stabilization, and identification of collected resources; curation of resources into a museum repository; and preparation of a
1. Retain a qualified paleontologist
if paleontological resources are
discovered.
2. Stop work and contact the City.
3. The paleontologist will evaluate
the find and make
recommendations for additional
mitigation.
4. During
construction
5. During
construction
6. During
construction
195
City of West Sacramento
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 11 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Action Monitoring Schedule
Completion
Date and Initials
final report documenting the monitoring methods and results to be submitted to the museum repository and the City of West Sacramento.
Noise
Mitigation Measure NOI‐1. Equip Construction Equipment with Mufflers.
Prior to any construction activity, the construction contractor (confirmed by the City), shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
1. City to confirm that contractor
has appropriate equipment.
1. Before
construction
Mitigation Measure NOI‐2. Locate Staging Areas Away from Residences.
Prior to and during any construction activity, the construction contractor (confirmed by the City or a City-appointed noise liaison) shall locate equipment staging in areas that would create the greatest possible distance between construction‐related noise sources and residences.
1. City to confirm construction
staging areas.
1. Before
construction
Mitigation Measure NOI‐3. Limit Construction Hours.
The construction contractor, through enforcement by the City, shall ensure that all general construction‐related activities be restricted to the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
Construction activities shall be restricted from occurring on weekends (Saturday and Sunday) and on holidays.
1. City to confirm that construction
is taking place within identified
hours.
1. During
construction.
Mitigation Measure NOI‐4. Appoint a Construction Noise Liaison, Enforce Noise Requirements, and Respond to Noise Complaints.
The City shall appoint a construction noise liaison who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The City shall facilitate a focus meeting with project area residents, the construction contractor, and the noise liaison to notify residents of potential impacts and measures to reduce such impacts.
If a noise complaint related to construction is received, the construction noise liaison shall determine the cause of the construction noise issue (e.g., construction activities outside of City authorized times, bad
1. Appoint a City construction noise
liaison.
2. Schedule and hold focus meeting
with residents.
3. Respond to noise complaints.
1. Before
construction
2. Before
construction
3. During
construction
196
City of West Sacramento
State Streets Infrastructure Projects 12 December 2019
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation Measure Monitoring and Reporting Action Monitoring Schedule
Completion
Date and Initials
muffler) and shall enforce existing City noise requirements with the construction contractor. If the noise complaint cannot be resolved through enforcement, Mitigation Measure NOI-5 shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure NOI‐5. Notify Residents Before Active Construction Begins and Provide Lodging Accommodations by Request.
At least 2 weeks (14 days) prior to commencement of construction activities within 500 feet (two blocks) of residences, the City (in coordination with the construction contractor and construction noise liaison) shall provide written notification to those residences of construction activities, the intended length of occurrence, the potential occurrence for short-term noise level increases, and noise liaison contact information. The written notification may be distributed to residences in person or by mail.
1. Inform residents of alternative
lodging option.
2. Coordinate with interested
residents.
1. During
construction
2. During
construction
Transportation
Mitigation Measure TR-1. Park and Stage Construction Equipment in Off-street Areas Where Possible.
Before construction begins, the City shall identify parking lots or other off-street locations within or near the project roadways where construction worker vehicles and construction equipment can be parked without interfering with the safety and visibility of streets in the project area. Such areas may include parking lots of commercial establishments, churches, and other facilities. The City will identify appropriate areas for construction worker vehicles that are near to work zones, as well as staging areas that can be appropriately secured. These areas will be indicated on project plans and specifications.
1. City to confirm contractor staging
and parking areas.
1. Before
construction
1 2
197
2600 Capitol Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95816
916.564.4500 phone
916.564.4501 fax
esassoc.com
April 5, 2024
Lizette Martinez, PE
Bennett Engineering Services, Inc.
1082 Sunrise Avenue, Suite 100
Roseville, CA 95661
Subject: Arborist Report for the State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project, West Sacramento Dear Ms. Martinez:
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) prepared this letter report to document arborist services provided for the State Streets Pavement Rehabilitation Project (Project). The project is located in the State Streets residential neighborhood of the City of West Sacramento, Yolo County, and is bounded by Jefferson Boulevard to the east, Park Boulevard to the west, 15th Street to the north, and Stone Boulevard to the south. The Project is part of the larger City of West Sacramento States Streets Infrastructure Project (Infrastructure Project) which has been largely completed. The Infrastructure Project included replacement of approximately 9,600 feet of water main and rehabilitation of approximately 36,000 feet of sewer main. The State Streets Rehabilitation Project will repair and/or remove and replace curbs and gutters and install curb ramps that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) within the State Streets neighborhood. Based on the Phase 1 Concrete Work plan details and information from Bennett Engineering, we understand that repair and replacement of the curbs and gutters will require approximately 12 inches of excavation for a distance of approximately 2.5 to 3 feet from the outer edge of the existing curb. Installation of the curb ramps will require approximately 10 inches of excavation.
The purpose of the survey is to provide the tree data needed to help comply with Mitigation Measures (MM) BIO 3a: Minimize Potential Impacts on Trees and MM BIO 3b: Implement Mitigation for Removed Trees of the Infrastructure Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Infrastructure Project IS/MND) and to assess potential impacts to trees resulting from the Project.
Regulatory Background
The City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 8.24 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code) regulates several classifications of trees that may be affected by a construction project, as defined below:
Heritage tree: Any living tree with a trunk circumference of 75 inches or more or a native oak with a trunk circumference of 50 inches or more, measured 4 feet 6 inches from ground level. The circumference of multitrunk trees shall be based upon the sum of the circumference of each trunk.
Landmark tree: Any tree or stand of trees that is especially prominent, stately or which is of historical significance as designated by the city council.
Native oak tree: A living tree of any species of the Quercus genus (all oaks, including the nine native California oaks); for example, the interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), valley oak or California white oak (Quercus lobata), or blue oak (Quercus douglasii).
Street tree: Any tree growing or placed within the tree maintenance strip or public right-of-way. 198
Ms. Martinez
April 5, 2024