Agenda packet — West Sacramento City Council, May 6, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

as vacated by Resolution No. 92-11, recorded January 14, 1992, in Book 2300, Page 72, Official Records. APN: 010-491-025-000
137
4924-4623-1951.4 007203.092
EXHIBIT “B”

CALCULATION OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PAYMENT
Project Market Rate Units (MRU) 9
Housing Trust Fund Program (HTFP) Fee per MRU $7,967
HTFP Payment (9 x $7,967) $71,703
Urban Infill Incentive (Discount of 50%) -$35,851.50
Total HTFP Payment $35,851.50
138
4924-4623-1951.4 007203.092
EXHIBIT “C”
(SEE ATTACHED MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT)
139
4924-4623-1951.4 007203.092

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:

City of West Sacramento
1110 West Capitol Avenue
West Sacramento, CA 95691
No recording fee required pursuant to
Government Code Section 27383.

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE

MEMORANDUM OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT
THIS MEMORANDUM OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT is made this 6th day of May 2026, by and among the CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO, a municipal corporation (“City”) and ION SOCHIRCA AND MARIANNA SOCHIRCA, husband and wife, as joint tenants, (the “Sochircas”).

City and the Sochircas are parties to that certain Affordable Housing Agreement dated as of May 6, 2026, the terms and conditions of which are hereby incorporated by this reference as if set forth in full herein. The Affordable Housing Agreement controls the development and use of that certain real property, including improvements thereto, situated in the County of Yolo, State of California, and more particularly described in Attachment 1.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum as of the date first above written.

CITY:

City of West Sacramento,
a California municipal corporation
BY: __________________________________
Aaron Laurel, City Manager
140
4924-4623-1951.4 007203.092
The Sochircas:

Ion Sochirca and Marianna Sochirca
Husband and Wife, as joint tenants
By:_________________________________
Name: Ion Sochirca
By:_________________________________
Name: Marianna Sochirca
141
4924-4623-1951.4 007203.092
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California }
County of }
On , ________ before me, , Notary
Public, personally appeared , who proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

Witness my hand and official seal.
[SEAL]

NOTARY PUBLIC
142
4924-4623-1951.4 007203.092
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California }
County of }
On , ___________, before me, , Notary
Public, personally appeared , who proved to me
on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument, the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

Witness my hand and official seal.
[SEAL]

NOTARY PUBLIC
143
4924-4623-1951.4 007203.092
ATTACHMENT 1 TO MEMORANDUM OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGREEMENT

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The land described herein is situated in the State of California, County of Yolo, City of West Sacramento, described as follows:

Parcel One:

Lot 16, Block 38, as shown on the Map entitled, "Town of Washington", recorded June 26, 1869, in Book "I" of Maps, Page 264.

Parcel Two:

The South one-half of that portion of the alley lying within the North one-half of Block 38, as shown on the Ma entitled, "Town of Washington", recorded June 26, 1869, in Book "I" of Maps,

Page 264 ends

as vacated by Resolution No. 92-11, recorded January 14, 1992, in Book 2300, Page 72, Official Records.

APN: 010-491-025-000
144
Attachment 2
Location Map
145
Attachment 3
Yolo County Income Limits – 2025
Household Size 1 – Person 2 – Person 3 – Person 4 – Person Very Low
(50% AMI) $44,100 $50,400 $56,650 $62,950
Low
(60% AMI) $57,090 $65,220 $73,380 $81,540
Low
(80% AMI) $70,500 $80,600 $90,650 $100,700
Median
(100% AMI) $95,150 $108,700 $122,300 $135,900
146
Attachment 4

CALCULATION OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PAYMENT
Project Market Rate Units (MRU) 9
Housing Trust Fund Program (HTFP) Fee per MRU $7,967.00 HTFP Payment (9 x $7,967) $71,703.00
Urban Infill Area Incentive (Discount of 50%) -$35,851.50 Total HTFP Payment $35,851.50
147

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2026 ITEM # 10
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS 26-44 AND 26-45 DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 860-870 RISKE LANE (APNS 058-310-018/-019)
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Traci Michel, Director
Economic Development and Housing Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this report is to facilitate City Council consideration of Resolutions 26-44 and 26-45 which appropriate funds and authorize the City Manager to acquire properties located at 860-870 Riske Lane for future City use.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:

1. Find that the acquisition of properties located at 860-870 Riske Lane (Properties) is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis pursuant to §15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan or Zoning) of the CEQA Guidelines;

2. Adopt Resolution 26-44 establishing a budget appropriation of $3,200,000 from Bridge District Infrastructure Financing District funds to cover initial acquisition costs; and

3. Adopt Resolution 26-45 delegating authority to the City Manager to take any and all actions necessary to complete the City’s acquisition of Properties.

BACKGROUND
The Bridge District is a planned 188-acre urban community located along West Sacramento’s riverfront, bordered by Tower Bridge to the north, the CEMEX property and Pioneer Bridge to the south, the Sacramento River to the east and I-80/I-50 and Jefferson Boulevard to the west. The Triangle Specific Plan (later known as Bridge District Specific Plan) approved in 1993 was visionary for its time, anticipating approximately 12.5 million square feet of residential, retail, and offices uses in an urban environment. In 2009, the Specific Plan was updated to include a public financing plan intended to leverage public and private investment to support key infrastructure improvements, including a new circulation network, to accommodate the high-density mixed-use development planned.

ANALYSIS
The properties located at 860-870 Riske Lane (a.k.a., Sac Stucco property) in the Bridge District total approximately 2.9 acres and were listed for sale last year by Kevin Sheehan, Managing Director at Kidder Mathews. Attachment 1 includes a site map for the parcels. The listing is an opportunity for the City to acquire right-of-way needed to complete multiple longstanding public improvements in the Bridge District, including extending Grand Street and Ballpark Drive into the Bridge District, widening 5th Street to support pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic from Cabaldon Parkway south to 15th Street, and expanding public parking. To date, only portions of 5th Street have been improved/widened and bicycle/pedestrian access is limited to the east side of 5th Street due to a lack of property control, which is not consistent with complete streets policy in the Mobility Element of the General Plan. The availability of these properties also provides a strategic opportunity for the City as it prepares to update the Bridge District Specific Plan and explore MLB expansion opportunities in the District.

LOI Terms
On March 30, 2026, the listing agent provided the City with a draft Letter of Intent (LOI) to Purchase the properties at a price of $3.2 million. The purchase price is approximately $25 per square foot. This is lower than other recently appraised or purchased properties with similar land use/zoning designations, which have ranged in price from $30 to $71 per square foot. This reduced price reflects the property’s close proximity to active rail, site access constraints, anticipated environmental remediation that has been historically documented, and the City’s known future infrastructure plans which include significant right-of-way needs that impede long-term development options. The City will receive a credit of up to $300,000 to be applied to the purchase price to help alleviate future environmental remediation costs.
148
Consideration of Resolutions 26-44 and 26-45 Sac Stucco Properties May 6, 2026

Page 2 ends

A summary of the proposed acquisition terms and property information is included below:

Sac Stucco Properties Summary of Purchase Terms
Property Address:  860-870 Riske Lane, West Sacramento  APNS 058-310-018/019
Land Area:  2.9 acres
Sale Price:  $3.2 million/$25 per square foot ($2.9 million/$23 per square foot with credit applied - see below)
Sale Price Credit:  Up to $300,000 credit towards purchase price for environmental remediation costs
 Credit amount confirmed by receipt of three cost proposals at prevailing wage rates and selecting the lowest responsive proposal
Deposit:  $50,000 due upon opening escrow
Due Diligence Period:  120-days from Purchase and Sale Agreement execution  Option to extend for additional 60 days at no cost to City Closing Date:  Within 30 days of Due Diligence Period completion, estimated December 20, 2026
Environmental Considerations
Anticipated project improvements include new and widened roads, pedestrian and bicycle pathways, street frontage landscaping and potential surface parking. These improvements are planned via the General Plan and the Bridge District Specific Plan and their respective Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs). Therefore the proposed action to acquire the subject properties can be found to be exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis pursuant to Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines (projects consistent with a community plan or zoning). Section 15183 of CEQA allows for a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. The project is consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. There are no project specific effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. There are no project specific impacts which the General Plan 2035 and Bridge District Specific Plan EIRs failed to analyze as significant effects. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts which the General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan EIRs failed to evaluate.

There is no substantial new information which results in more severe impacts than anticipated by the General Plan and Bridge District Specific Plan EIRs. Site soil contamination is a known quantity and thus part of baseline conditions and does not represent a new or more significant impact given that contaminated properties were addressed in both the General Plan and Bridge District EIRs. A Notice of Exemption, including a Section 15183 Consistency Analysis, is included as Attachment 4.

Commission Recommendation
Due to this item being a real estate negotiation, it was not presented to the Economic Development and Housing Commission.

Strategic Plan Integration
The application aligns with the Council’s Strategic Plan Goals of facilitating implementation of the Bridge District Specific Plan.

Alternatives
Alternatives to the recommended actions for the City Council include:

1. Decline to approve all recommended actions;

2. Direct staff to modify acquisition terms for the Properties; or

3. Delay all recommended actions to a later date.

These alternatives are not recommended as implementation of the Bridge District’s circulation network is dependent on gaining control of the Properties, the non-binding conditional offer has been accepted at a purchase price below similar, recent property transactions, and funding is currently available to fund the acquisition.
149
Consideration of Resolutions 26-44 and 26-45 Sac Stucco Properties May 6, 2026

Page 3 ends

Coordination and Review
This report was prepared by the Economic Development and Housing Department in coordination with the Finance Department, City Manager’s Office and the City Attorney.

Budget/Cost Impact
A summary of the acquisition costs for the Properties is included below:

Purchase Terms: Amount
Purchase Price $3,200,000
Deposit (applied to Purchase Price) ($50,000)
Closing Costs $50,000
Environmental Credit ($300,000)
Balance at Closing $2,950,000
Adoption of Resolution 26-44 appropriates up to $3.2 million from Bridge District IFD funds. There is sufficient bond funding to fund the acquisition, remediation and demolition costs, as needed. Additionally, the expenditure of funds can be completed within the bond funding’s required time frame.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 26-44

2. Resolution 26-45

3. Location Map

4. Notice of Exemption
150
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 26-44

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO ESTABLISHING A BUDGET APPROPRIATION OF UP TO $3.2 MILLION FROM BRIDGE DISTRICT IFD FUNDS FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 860-870 RISKE LANE
WHEREAS, properties located at 860-870 Riske Lane (Properties) was offered to the city by the property owner/seller; and
WHEREAS, the Properties are located within planned future right-of-way needed to complete multiple longstanding public improvements in the Bridge District, including extending Grand Street and Ballpark Drive into the Bridge District, widening 5th Street to support pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic from Cabaldon Parkway south to 15th Street, and expanding public parking; and
WHEREAS, sufficient balances exist in the Bridge District IFD fund to fund the purchase; and
WHEREAS, the Bridge District Infrastructure Financing District prioritizes land acquisition and assembly for public infrastructure; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento as follows:

1. The City Council hereby approves amendments to the CIP and Operations and Maintenance budget for the 2025-2026 fiscal year as listed below.

SOURCES
$3,200,000 405-9098-4990/405-51038-4990 Transfer in fr B.D. IFD $3,200,000 296-0000-3060 B.D. IFD Fund Balance
$3,200,000 Total Sources
USES
$3,200,000 296-9020-5950 Transfer out to CIP-51038
$3,200,000 405-9098-5530/405-51038-5800 Property Acquisition $3,200,000 Total Uses

2. The City Council hereby finds that the facts set forth in the recitals to this Resolution are true and correct and establish the factual basis for the City Council’s adoption of this Resolution.

3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the West Sacramento City Council this 6th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
151
RESOLUTION 26-45
RESOLUTION 26-47 OF THE CITY COUNCIL DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE ANY AND ALL ACTIONS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE CITY’S ACQUISITION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 860-870 RISKE LANE (APNS 058-310-018/- 019)
WHEREAS, properties located at 860-870 Riske Lane (Properties) was offered to the city by the property owner/seller; and
WHEREAS, the Properties are located within planned future right-of-way needed to complete multiple longstanding public improvements in the Bridge District, including extending Grand Street and Ballpark Drive into the Bridge District, widening 5th Street to support pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic from Cabaldon Parkway south to 15th Street, and expanding public parking; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager, under the direction of the City Council, made a non-binding, conditional offer for below the asking price that was accepted by the seller, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of West Sacramento delegates authority to the City Manager to take any and all actions necessary to complete the purchase of the Motel Property from the seller, including but not to:

A. Conduct due diligence on the Property; and
B. Execute a purchase and sale agreement for the Property, subject to the Approval of the City Attorney and the terms and conditions in Exhibit A; and C. Accept the Property.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of West Sacramento on this 6th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
Attachment 2
152
Exhibit A
Summary of Purchase Terms for 860-870 Riske Lane
Property Address:  860-870 Riske Lane, West Sacramento  APNS 058-310-018/019
Land Area:  2.9 acres
Sale Price:  $3.2 million/$25 per square foot ($2.9 million/$23 per square foot with credit applied - see below)
Sale Price Credit:  Up to $300,000 credit towards purchase price for environmental remediation costs
 Credit amount confirmed by receipt of three cost proposals at prevailing wage rates and selecting the lowest responsive proposal
Deposit:  $50,000 due upon opening escrow
Due Diligence Period:  120-days from Purchase and Sale Agreement execution  Option to extend for additional 60 days at no cost to City Closing Date:  Within 30 days of Due Diligence Period completion, estimated December 20, 2026
153
Attachment 3
Property Location Map
Denotes Sac Stucco Parcels: 860-870 Riske Lane
154

Statutory Exemptions. State code number:

_______________________________________________
Print Form
Notice of Exemption Appendix E
To: Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Agency): ____________________________ P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 _______________________________________________ Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk
(Address)
___________________________
___________________________
County of: __________________
Project Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Location - Specific:

Project Location - City: ______________________ Project Location - County:

Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
_____________________
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _____________________________________________________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: ________________________________________________ Exempt Status: (check one):

Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Reasons why project is exempt:

Lead Agency
Contact Person: ____________________________ Area Code/Telephone/Extension: _______________ If filed by applicant:

1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature: ____________________________ Date:

Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:

Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. _______________
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: ____________________________________ ______________________________________________
______________ Title: _______________________
155 Revised 2011
1 General Plan 2035 EIR and SEIR Consistency Documentation 860-870 Riske Lane Acquisition
May 2026

INTRODUCTION
The City of West Sacramento (City) is proposing to acquire two properties located in the Bridge District Specific Plan area at 860-870 Riske Lane totaling 2.9 acres (the “proposed project"). The properties currently host Sacramento Stucco Co. and are needed for future public use including planned roadway improvements. This document provides the appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis and findings to support the City’s action on the proposed project.

In 2016, the City adopted a comprehensive General Plan update – “General Plan 2035.” The 2016 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for General Plan 2035 included an analysis of projected future development throughout the city, including development anticipated under General Plan 2035 and the Bridge District Specific Plan (BDSP). The impacts associated with the types of development proposed at the project site, the proposed zoning and land use designations, the maximum development density, and the locations where project development could occur, were previously analyzed in the 2016 General Plan EIR (ICF International 2016).

In 2023, the City prepared and certified a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) and adopted updates to General Plan 2035 related to the Mobility Element and the BDSP (AECOM 2023).

Pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City, as the lead agency, intends to use the 2016 General Plan EIR for General Plan 2035 and the 2023 SEIR as the CEQA documents for the environmental impacts associated with adoption of the proposed property acquisition. The 2016 General Plan EIR, the 2023 General Plan SEIR, and the BDSP SEIR are available for review on the City’s website at Community Development | City of West Sacramento. The General Plan EIR and SEIRs may also be reviewed in person at the City Community Development Department offices, located at 1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, CA.

CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15183
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 allows a streamlined environmental review process for projects that are consistent with the densities established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 was developed to assist lead agencies in implementing Public Resources Code Section 21083.3, which is described below.

PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21083.3
Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 (a) and (b) provide that, where a parcel has been zoned or designated in a community plan to accommodate a particular density of development, or where a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency, and an environmental impact report was certified for the zoning or planning action or the general plan, the examination of environmental effects shall be limited to those that:
“…are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report.”
Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(d) further defines that an effect of a project upon the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the parcel or to the project if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted, with a finding based upon substantial evidence that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate the environmental effect when applied to future projects.
156
2 GENERAL PLAN EIR STREAMLINING STRATEGIES
The City’s 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR were designed to support future environmental analysis for projects consistent with the General Plan. The City declared its intent to make use of the exemption set forth in the Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 as a part of the General Plan SEIR (AECOM 2023 page 5-9):
“The City intends to make full use of the streamlining allowed under Public Resources Code 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines 15183. Under this provision, CEQA only applies to issues “peculiar to the site.” Lead agencies can use EIRs for a general plan, community plan, or other type of plan to analyze the impacts of projects that are consistent with the plan and greatly limit later analysis to site-specific issues. CEQA Guidelines Section 15183(f) provides that impacts are not peculiar to the project if uniformly applied development policies or standards substantially mitigate that environmental effect. The mitigating policies and implementation programs of the City of West Sacramento’s General Plan are considered uniformly applied development policies.

Public agencies can use uniformly applied policies or standards to mitigate effects of future projects, precluding the need to analyze these effects, unless new information arises that changes the impact analysis (Public Resources Code Section 21083.3[d]).

Future CEQA documents within the City limits may reference the same mitigating policies and implementation programs, where appropriate, to demonstrate less-than-significant impacts and that later project-level issues are not “peculiar to the parcel” if they have been substantially mitigated by General Plan policies and implementation programs (uniformly applied development policies).”
This document describes in detail how the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR address the any potential impacts associated with the City’s acquisition of the two subject properties for public purposes.
157
3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Bridge District Specific Plan Area
The Bridge District is a planned 188-acre urban community located along West Sacramento’s riverfront, bordered by Tower Bridge to the north, the CEMEX property and Pioneer Bridge to the south, the Sacramento River to the east and I-80/I-50 and Jefferson Boulevard to the west.

The Triangle Specific Plan (currently known as Bridge District Specific Plan) approved in 1993 was visionary for its time, anticipating approximately 12.5 million square feet of residential, retail, and offices uses in an urban environment. In 2009, the Specific Plan was updated to include a public financing plan intended to leverage public and private investment to support key infrastructure improvements, including a new circulation network, to accommodate the high- density mixed-use development planned.

Acquisition of 860-870 Riske Lane
The properties located at 860-870 Riske Lane (aka Sac Stucco property) in the Bridge District total approximately 2.9 acres and were listed for sale last year by Kevin Sheehan, Managing Director at Kidder Mathews. The listing is an opportunity for the City to acquire right-of-way needed to complete multiple longstanding public improvements in the Bridge District, including extending Grand Street and Ballpark Drive into the Bridge District, widening 5th Street to support pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic from Cabaldon Parkway south to 15th Street, and expanding public parking. To date, only portions of 5th Street have been improved/widened and bicycle/pedestrian access is limited to the east side of 5th Street due to a lack of property control, which is not consistent with complete streets policy in the Mobility Element of the General Plan. The availability of these properties also provides a strategic opportunity for the City as it prepares to update the Bridge District Specific Plan (BDSP) and explore MLB expansion opportunities in the District.

General Plan and EIR/SEIR
In 2016, the City adopted a comprehensively revised General Plan. General Plan 2035 provides policy guidance for the amount, character, and location of urban development, as well as preservation and natural resource conservation, economic development, transportation, safety, public facilities and services, and housing. General Plan 2035 addresses development throughout the city through the year 2035, including the Bridge District. The 2016 General Plan EIR addresses potential environmental effects attributable to implementation of General Plan 2035.

The vision expressed in the General Plan includes creation of a vibrant central city, transitioning away from a mix of older commercial and industrial uses to more viable uses, and a renewed emphasis on reclaiming the Sacramento River waterfront. Under General Plan 2035, the central city continues to be revitalized by actions and developments such as improvements to West Capitol Avenue, City Hall, library, community college, transit center and other community facilities, the Sutter Health baseball stadium (home of the Sacramento River Cats Minor League baseball team and temporary home to the A’s Major League Baseball team), and new, compact mixed-use developments. The riverfront has been and continues to be improved with parks, trails, and other amenities. The City envisions that new and revitalized urban mixed-use districts and corridors would provide new opportunities for compatible and integrated housing, retail, and office uses and enhance the city’s urban structure.

In 2023, the City adopted updates to the Mobility Element of General Plan 2035 and the Bridge District Specific Plan, which included the following:
► Goals, policies, and implementation measures that reflect the City’s commitment to community sustainability. Specific examples include a vital central business district; compact, mixed-use developments near transit nodes; encouragement of urban infill where practical; revitalization of areas such as Stone Lock, Pioneer Bluff, and Seaway; flood protection; and passive and active recreation opportunities along the Sacramento River.
► Reflect the land use pattern and intensity set out in the Sustainable Communities 158
4 Strategy (SCS) adopted by Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG).

The 2023 General Plan update included amendments to the Circulation Diagram in the Mobility Element to incorporate geometries identified in the Pioneer Bluff and Stone Lock Reuse Master Plan, the Washington Realized Sustainable Community Strategy, and the BDSP, including changes in functional classification system, including new Collectors, extensions to Collectors, new intersections, and one new arterial.

Aside from changes to the Circulation Diagram and functional classification system, the 2023 General Plan update included certain text changes to the Mobility Element. These include revisions that reflect the City’s progress instituting changes that were proposed as a part of the original Mobility Element, as well as revisions that reflect an updated vision for transit service, and a renewed focus on strategies to reduce vehicular travel demand (vehicle miles traveled, or “VMT”) and increase the safety, convenience, and practicality of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes for reaching daily destinations.

Other proposed text changes affirm the City’s commitment to involve the public in transportation improvements, particularly those that have traditionally been underserved by transportation services and the city’s disadvantaged communities. Still other changes focus on addressing gaps in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, particularly in areas where development patterns are relatively more supportive of these non-vehicular travel modes.

The 2023 plan amendments addressed in the 2023 SEIR also included a change to the planned transportation facilities described in the BDSP, including Volume 2, Section 2.2, the Regulating Plan, which identifies the backbone circulation infrastructure and functional classifications, as well as the “order” (combined streetscape and building design standards guidance). The proposed amendment included revised exhibits showing typical cross sections to augment the streetscape standards for new roadway segments.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE PROJECT SITE The subject properties are within the scope of development projected under the General Plan EIR and SEIR as well as the BDSP. The same properties that were assumed to develop under the General Plan EIR and SEIR are also assumed to potentially develop on the subject properties in addition to public uses. The land use change assumptions that were used to drive the analysis in the General Plan EIR are consistent with those now assumed for this CEQA Consistency Analysis based on the General Plan and BDSP.

The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the current General Plan and BDSP were addressed as a part of the General Plan EIR and SEIR.

The City’s General Plan designates the proposed project area as Riverfront Mixed Use (RMU). The RMU land use designation Riverfront Mixed-Use (RMU) provides for marinas, restaurants, retail, amusement, hotel and motel uses, mid-rise and high-rise offices, multi-family residential units that are oriented principally to the river, public and quasi- public uses, and similar and compatible uses. 159
5 CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
Environmental Topics Not Discussed in Detail in This Consistency Analysis The acquisition of the subject properties under the existing Waterfront zoning district and BDSP would result in no impacts related to the following topic areas, as described briefly below. ► Agriculture and Forestry Resources. The Bridge District is an urban infill and redevelopment area that consists of previously developed urban land. The district is surrounded by existing urban development in the city of West Sacramento. There is no Important Farmland, no agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts, and no forestland or timberland within or near the zoning district, and thus implementation of a project consistent with the current Specific Plan within the Bridge District would not result in conversion of forestland or timberland or Farmland land to nonagricultural use. ► Energy Resources. Construction of a project consistent with the BDSP would include buildings that would be required to be designed to meet all applicable energy efficiency standards at the time of construction and would be required to comply with the energy performance standards found in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, including the Green Building Code (Part 11 of Title 24) Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Construction activities must be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including applicable federal, state, and local laws that are intended to promote efficient utilization of resources. These energy efficiency standards ensure that construction and building energy consumption would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Furthermore, since transportation is the top user of energy in California, reducing vehicular travel demand is the most important strategy for improving energy efficiency. The Bridge District is in an area where existing vehicle miles traveled (VMT, a measure of vehicular travel demand) are relatively low (see the City’s Mobility Element, Mobility Implementation Measure 14- 14). There are no planned renewable energy projects within the Bridge. Thus, a project consistent with the current General Plan and BDSP within the district would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency including the California Renewable Portfolio Standard, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (Senate Bill 350), and the CALGreen Code. ► Geology, Soils, and Paleontological Resources. Construction of a project consistent with the current Specific Plan would be required by law to implement the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations Title 24), which includes requirements for geotechnical reports related to seismic design parameters (strong seismic ground shaking), liquefaction, and unstable and expansive soil, all of which must be incorporated into the project design and construction. A future project applicant would also be required by law to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) per the State Water Resources Control Board’s Statewide Storm Water General Permit for Construction Activity that would address control of water pollution, including sediment, in runoff during construction. Finally, the zoning district is composed of Holocene-age alluvial and basin deposits (Gutierrez 2011), which are too young to contain unique paleontological resources and therefore are not paleontologically sensitive rock formations. Thus, construction activities associated with future development within the Bridge District would not encounter or potentially damage or destroy unique paleontological resources. The Bridge District does not contain any unique geological features.
► Mineral Resources. The Bridge District does not contain any mineral resources (O’Neal and Gius 2018).
► Recreation. As required by the City, a project consistent with the BDSP would include on-site recreational amenities for both public, and private (on-site 160
6 residential) use. Therefore, physical deterioration of off-site recreational facilities because of a project consistent with the BDSP would not occur. The potential environmental effects of on-site recreational amenities associated with a project consistent with the BDSP are included throughout the analysis of all the topic areas considered in this analysis. Project sponsors will be required to pay park impact fees, provide and develop parkland space, or combination thereof as applicable in the Bridge District.
► Public Services. A project consistent with the BSDP would be considered a reuse and redevelopment project. The parcels that comprise the project area are currently developed with structures related to the Sac Stucco use of the property.

Redevelopment of the Bridge District, including new mixed urban uses such as apartments, surface parking, offices, and retail space would be consistent with the amount of development and population accounted for in General Plan 2035, and therefore would not substantially increase the need for fire protection, police protection, or school services beyond General Plan 2035 forecasts. Furthermore, the need for new schools based on a project consistent with the current Specific Plan would be determined by the Washington Unified District based on California Department of Education School Siting Criteria and separate CEQA analyses performed by the school district, and the project applicants would be required to pay all applicable State-mandated school impact fees as required by Senate Bill 50.

Therefore, a project consistent with the BDSP would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives. ► Wildfire. The Bridge District is situated within the existing developed urban core of West Sacramento. There are no areas of very high, high, or moderate wildfire hazards within or near the project site (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2024).
161
7 ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
The following checklist examines the potential environmental impacts that may result from acquisition of the subject parcels.

This consistency analysis first provides the impact conclusions as addressed by the General Plan EIR and SEIR. Then, this evaluation identifies whether there are any impacts that would be peculiar to the parcel that would be beyond those already addressed as a part of General Plan 2035 and EIR. Finally, the analysis describes applicable uniform development policies and standards from General Plan 2035 and EIR and SEIR that should be applied as conditions of approval to a future project.

The checklist indicates whether the proposed project would result in significant impacts that:

1. are peculiar to the project or project site;

2. were not identified as impacts in the 2016 General Plan EIR or 2023 General Plan SEIR; or

3. are more severe as a result of substantial new information that was not known at the time that the General Plan EIR was certified.

Impacts attributable to implementation of a future project consistent with the current Specific Plan that were addressed by the General Plan 2035 EIR and/or SEIR and are not peculiar to the parcel are exempt from further environmental review in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
162
8 Aesthetics
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Aesthetics. 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 points). 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?

DISCUSSION
Development within the Bridge District is within the scope of development projected under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR. The same properties that were assumed to develop under the General Plan EIR and SEIR are also assumed to potentially develop in the Bridge District, including development consistent with the specific plan. The land use change assumptions that were used to drive the analysis in the General Plan EIR are consistent with those now assumed for this CEQA analysis in terms of a project consistent with the BDSP. The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the BDSP were addressed as a part of the General Plan EIR and SEIR, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that would result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR or SEIR.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.3-20 through 3.3-22) and the 2023 SEIR (pages 3.1-2 and

3.1-3) found that impacts to scenic vistas would be significant and unavoidable, but only where such scenic vistas were present.

The Bridge District is situated in the existing urban core area of the City, and it includes and is surrounded by vacant land (formerly developed but the buildings have been demolished) and developed land including buildings, roadways, and surface parking. A project consistent with the BDSP would be visible from the Tower Bridge or the Sacramento River however there are no scenic vistas and thus there would be no impact.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.1-23) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.1-3) found there would be no impact to scenic highways. The Bridge District is not visible from either a State- or locally designated scenic highway. The closest State-designated highway is State Route 160 south of Freeport (8.5 miles to the south), which is outside West Sacramento’s incorporated limits. The nearest locally designed scenic highways are Old River Road (approximately 2.3 miles to the northwest) and Garden Highway (approximately 1.5 miles to the north). Thus, there would be no impact.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.1-20 through 3.1-22) found that new development in the city would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to potential degradation of visual character by reducing the amount of open space that is physically and visually accessible, altering the visual character, and converting agricultural and open space land to developed land uses. The 2016 General Plan EIR found that General Plan policies and zoning code requirements for design review would ensure that degraded existing visual 163
9 conditions in the city are improved through renovations and blight reduction and would ensure that new development would be designed in a manner that is aesthetically pleasing and sensitive to adjacent land uses, including the natural and historical context. This objective would be achieved through building, infrastructure, and utility placement and design; the use of landscaping and site amenities; and design review to ensure that design requirements are addressed in proposed designs for renovations, infill, and new development. Nevertheless, the 2016 General Plan EIR found that conversion of existing undeveloped areas into urban development and enhancing density and activity in existing developed areas would change the visual environment. Therefore, the 2016 General Plan EIR found that West Sacramento would transition over time from a city that still retains a large rural visual component to one that is more developed, and although this transition could be viewed favorably by many people, visual character is inherently subjective, and some people – particularly residents in areas near currently undeveloped lands – could perceive such transitions negatively.

The project would involve redevelopment within the city’s urban core area. All the parcels that comprise the Bridge District have been previously developed with buildings and surface parking areas, most of which have since been demolished and many new buildings have been built. The project would not involve conversion of rural or agricultural land to urban uses, and furthermore it would be subject to uniformly applied development standards through required consistency with the City’s design standards, design review process, and Bridge District standards. A project consistent with the specific plan would result in an improvement in both the visual character and visual quality as compared to existing conditions. The purpose of the Bridge District is to provide areas for mixed-use development that creates a prominent gateway to West Sacramento’s downtown and civic center areas, and a complementary transition to the urban development in neighboring districts. Other projects within the Bridge District will be required to be consistent with the Bridge District development standards, as well as other applicable City standards related to visual resources, aesthetics, and scenic quality.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.1-23 through 3.1-26) found that new development in the City would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to new substantial sources of light and glare particularly where rural agricultural areas would be converted to urban development, and by increasing the density of development in existing developed areas.

A project consistent with the BDSP would be subject to uniform development uniform in the form of the 2016 General Plan EIR mitigation measures listed below:
► Mitigation Measure AES-3a: Create new Urban Structure and Design Policies to Apply Minimum Lighting Standards and to Reduce Glare. Outdoor lighting limited to safety and security requirements designed using Illuminating Engineering Society’s design guidelines and in compliance with International Dark-Sky Association approved fixtures; use materials in new buildings that reduce glare; windows in mid-rise and high-rise buildings must be designed to reduce glare. ► Mitigation Measure AES-3c: Create New Natural And Cultural Resources Policy to Apply Minimum Lighting Standards. New buildings must use low-intensity interior safety lighting for use after business hours instead of standard interior safety lighting; all non-safety lighting, such as in offices and hallways, must be turned off after business hours; employ the most current light pollution reduction techniques in new building design.
164
10 Air Quality
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Where 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?

DISCUSSION
The Bridge District is within the scope of development projected under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR. The same properties that were assumed to develop under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR are also assumed to potentially develop in the Bridge District. The land use change assumptions that were used to drive the analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR are consistent with those now assumed for this CEQA analysis, consistent with the proposed project. The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the BDSP were addressed as a part of the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that would result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR or 2023 SEIR.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.3-15 through 3.3-19) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-3) discussed impacts related to conflicts with or obstruction of the applicable air quality plan.

West Sacramento is within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin, which is regulated by the Yolo Sacramento Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). The development forecasts in the 2016 General Plan and 2023 General Plan Update reflect City policies to promote infill development and pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access – policies that would help to reduce the potential adverse air quality effects from future development included in the General Plan are that are consistent with the strategies of the State Implementation Plan and of the Sacramento Metropolitan Region’s air quality attainment plans.

The 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR found that because the project was a General Plan, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans, and the impact was considered less than significant.

A project consistent with the BDSP would generate air pollutant emissions, but future development within the Bridge District would be required to implement uniform development standards in the form of applicable YSAQMD rules related to project construction and operation, which are specifically designed to promote consistency with the relevant air quality plans, as well as 2016 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure AQ-2, which requires construction dust control mitigation consistent with YSAQMD guidance.

Furthermore, a project consistent with the Specific plan would comply with Sacramento Area Council of Governments’ (SACOG) Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which has air pollutant emissions reduction requirements. The 165
11 Specific plan would be consistent with MTP/SCS policies including (from Priority Policy Area 1, POLICY 1)
► Development in communities where services, amenities, and transportation infrastructure already exist;
► Revitalization of urban…centers and corridors;
► Higher density housing options such as… multi-family housing options…; and ► Complete communities that include a balance of homes, jobs, services, amenities, and diverse transportation options; transit-oriented development including more housing and jobs in high frequency transit areas
The Bridge District is in an area where development generates a low level of vehicle miles traveled per capita (residential population) (General Plan Mobility Element, page 21).

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.3-19 through 3.3-24) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-4 through 3.3-7) discussed impacts related to violation of air quality standards or substantial contributions to air quality violations. The 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR found that emissions during construction would exceed relevant thresholds, and despite the application of existing YSAQMD rules and Mitigation Measure AQ-2, the impact was considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 requires:

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement construction dust control mitigation measures described in YSAQMD’s CEQA Handbook (language added below from YSAQMD Handbook). • Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure.
• Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. • Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials. • Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed area.
• Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days). • Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land.
• Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. • Cover inactive storage piles.
• Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. • Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6 to 12 inch layer of wood chips or mulch.
• Treat accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road with a 6- inch layer of gravel.

A project consistent with the BDSP would have the same sources of construction emissions as those that were considered in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR. The 2023 SEIR explains that, due to increasing fuel efficiency and vehicle regulations, as well as the increase in the greater number of electric vehicles in the fleet, despite development and increases in 166
12 vehicular travel, mobile source emissions are anticipated to decrease between present and 2040 (2023 SEIR, page 3.3-6) – this was also true for the analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR (page

3.3-21). Since vehicles are the predominant source of oxides of nitrogen (an ozone precursor), these emissions are anticipated to decrease (even while reactive organic gases, another ozone precursor, are anticipated to increase between present and General Plan buildout).

A project consistent with the specific plan would be required to implement uniform development standards in the form of YSAQMD rules related to project construction and operation, which are specifically designed to reduce criteria air pollutant emissions. Furthermore, a project consistent with the Specific plan within the zoning district would be subject to uniform development standard Mitigation Measure AQ-2 from the 2016 General Plan EIR, which requires projects to implement YSAQMD construction dust and construction equipment exhaust control measures to reduce the amount of dust emissions from construction activities.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.3-24) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-7) found that the General Plan would have a less-than-significant cumulative contribution to increases of criteria non- attainment pollutants since it is consistent with current air quality attainment plans. The 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR explain that the General Plan’s focus on promoting infill development that encourages pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, and consistency with the SACOG MTP/SCS is also consistent with air quality attainment planning. A project consistent with the Specific plan would be consistent with policies in SACOG’s MTP/SCS and the General Plan that would reduce VMT, thereby reducing cumulative criteria pollutant emissions.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.3-24 through 3.3-27) and the 2023 SEIR (pages 3.3-7 and

3.3-8) found that, with implementation of General Plan policies to future projects, there would be a less-than-significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Development consistent with the BDSP could expose sensitive receptors to air pollutants during construction, since there are residences in the broader vicinity of the project site. However, based on the scale and nature of the planned growth in the BDSP, the City does not anticipate any significant impact related to construction-related pollutant concentrations. The BDSP does not include any uses that would generate substantial pollutant concentrations during operations, and therefore uniformly applied development standards related to buffering incompatible land uses (e.g., industrial from residential) do not apply.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.3-27 and 3.3-28) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-8) found a less-than-significant impact related to exposure to odors and noted that General Plan Policy S5.4 requires an adequate distance between sensitive land uses and facilities or operations that may produce substantial odors:

A project consistent with the BDSP could include on-site restaurant facilities that could generate odors. However, on-site restaurants would be subject to uniform development standards in the form of the California Retail Food Code (California Health and Safety Code Division 104, Environmental Health Part 7, Sections 113700–114437), which requires commercial kitchens to have a mechanical exhaust system that removes all grease and odors from the kitchen. A project consistent with the Specific plan would also be subject to uniform development standards in the form of YSAQMD Rule 2.5, which is designed to prevent odor issues by prohibiting discharge of emissions that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public.
167
13 Biological Resources
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Biological Resources. 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 Game or the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 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 habitat conservation plan?

DISCUSSION
The Bridge District is within the scope of development projected under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR. The same properties that were assumed to develop under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR are also assumed to potentially develop in the Bridge District. The land use change assumptions that were used to drive the analysis in the General Plan EIR are consistent with those now assumed for this CEQA analysis in terms of a project consistent with the Specific plan. The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the Specific plan were addressed as a part of the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that would result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR or 2023 SEIR.

Consistent with General Plan Policy NCR-2.4, Habitat Surveys, the City commissioned a biological resources assessment for properties included within the BDSP area. Policy NCR-2.4 requires:

Policy NCR-2.4 Habitat Surveys. The City shall require site-specific surveys for discretionary development proposals that could potentially impact biological resources to determine if any significant wildlife habitat and vegetation resources will be adversely affected and, if so, to identify appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate such impacts. Include protection measures to avoid and minimize the introduction and spread of invasive plants in all habitat mitigation requirements.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.4-32 through 3.4-37) and 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-1) found that the impact of the loss of special-status plants and wildlife and their habitats would be less than significant and that General Plan policies would minimize, avoid, and compensate for potential direct and indirect effects on special-status species. 168
14 With respect to nesting birds and nesting habitat, a project consistent with the BDSP would be subject to uniformly applied development standards in the form of General Plan Policy NCR-2.4, which requires site-specific surveys and appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate such impacts. General Plan Policy NCR-2.7 requires the City to ensure that development projects do not adversely affect such species or that projects fully mitigate their impact. Implementation Program Natural and Cultural Resources 1 indicates that the City will participate in the Yolo Habitat Conservancy Program. As described throughout this Consistency Analysis and in Appendix A (Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Reporting Form), the Specific plan site is developed and as such, would generally not affect sensitive species or habitat. However, there are suitable Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite nest trees within 1,320 feet of the Specific plan site, and therefore, if a future project is proposed within the project area, the City may require HCP Avoidance and Minimization Measures 8 and 16, which require preconstruction surveys at the appropriate times and specified actions to avoid adverse impact.
► AMM 8: Avoid and Minimize Effects of Construction Staging Areas and Temporary Work Areas. Equipment staging and other temporary work areas will be restricted to the existing project footprint and adjacent rights-of-ways (such as adjacent roadways and bike lanes). No temporary work area will be located in covered species habitat or other sensitive natural communities.
► AMM 8: Avoid and Minimize Effects of Construction Staging Areas and Temporary Work Areas. Project proponents should locate construction staging and other temporary work areas for covered activities in areas that will ultimately be a part of the permanent project development footprint. If construction staging and other temporary work areas must be located outside of permanent project footprints, they will be located either in areas that do not support habitat for covered species or are easily restored to prior or improved ecological functions (e.g., grassland and agricultural land). Construction staging and other temporary work areas located outside of project footprints will be sited in areas that avoid adverse effects on the following:
• Serpentine, valley oak woodland, alkali prairie, vernal pool complex, valley foothill riparian, and fresh emergent wetland land cover types.
• Occupied western burrowing owl burrows. Occupied for the purpose of AMM8 means at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying the burrow within the last three years. Occupancy of a burrow may also be indicated by owl sign at the burrow entrance, including molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site. • Nest sites for covered bird species and all raptors, including noncovered raptors, during the breeding season.
► Project proponents will follow specific AMMs for sensitive natural communities (Section

4.3.3, Sensitive Natural Communities) and covered species (Section 4.3.4, Covered Species) in temporary staging and work areas. For establishment of temporary work areas outside of the project footprint, project proponents will conduct surveys to determine if any of the biological resources listed above are present. ► Within one year following removal of land cover, project proponents will restore temporary work and staging areas to a condition equal to or greater than the covered species habitat function of the affected habitat. Restoration of vegetation in temporary work and staging areas will use clean, native seed mixes approved by the Conservancy that are free of noxious plant species seeds.
► AMM 16: Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite. There is potential for Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite to nest within 1,320 feet of the proposed project. As such, a pre-construction survey will be 169
15 conducted and will follow the requirements outlined in AMM 16 below. If necessary, nest trees will be avoided as described in AMM-16 of the YOLO HCP/NCCP. If trees with active nests cannot be avoided, a biologist shall be present on-site during tree trimming/removal to monitor the bird’s behavior and order that work be stopped if the birds begin to exhibit agitated behavior.
► AMM 16: Minimize Take and Adverse Effects on Habitat of Swainson’s Hawk and White-Tailed Kite. The project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct planning-level surveys and identify any nesting habitat present within 1,320 feet of the project footprint. Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas. • If a construction project cannot avoid potential nest trees (as determined by the qualified biologist) by 1,320 feet, the project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for active nests consistent, with guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000), between March 15 and August 30, within 15 days prior to the beginning of the construction activity. The results of the survey will be submitted to the Conservancy and CDFW. If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a 1,320-foot initial temporary nest disturbance buffer shall be established. If project related activities within the temporary nest disturbance buffer are determined to be necessary during the nesting season, then the qualified biologist will monitor the nest and will, along with the project proponent, consult with CDFW to determine the best course of action necessary to avoid nest abandonment or take of individuals. Work may be allowed only to proceed within the temporary nest disturbance buffer if Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite are not exhibiting agitated behavior, such as defensive flights at intruders, getting up from a brooding position, or flying off the nest, and only with the agreement of CDFW and USFWS. The designated on-site biologist/monitor shall be on-site daily while construction-related activities are taking place within the 1,320-foot buffer and shall have the authority to stop work if raptors are exhibiting agitated behavior. Up to 20 Swainson’s hawk nest trees (documented nesting within the last 5 years) may be removed during the permit term, but they must be removed when not occupied by Swainson’s hawks.
• For covered activities that involve pruning or removal of a potential Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite nest tree, the project proponent will conduct preconstruction surveys that are consistent with the guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000). If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, no tree pruning or removal of the nest tree will occur during the period between March 1 and August 30 within 1,320 feet of an active nest, unless a qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active.

Regarding the potential for existing buildings on the site providing winter roosting habitat for the pallid bat, as noted previously, General Plan Policy NCR-2.7 requires the City to ensure that development projects do not adversely affect such species or that projects fully mitigate their impact. Uniformly Applied Development Standard NCR-2.7a has been developed to implement Policy NCR-2.7 and the City will require adherence to this Standard if a future project is proposed on the project site:
► Uniformly Applied Development Standard NCR-2.7a Conduct pre-demolition surveys for bats and take appropriate action. Conduct a pre-demolition survey for bat species prior to demolition or removal of any structure or tree no more than 48 hours prior to demolition or removal. Conduct the survey at dusk – one hour before dusk and three hours after or other survey period determined by a qualified biologist to adequately determine whether a structure or tree is occupied by bat species to observe any foraging bat exit and entry behavior from roost sites. If bat species are determined to be present, a qualified biologist will oversee appropriate avoidance measures, which may include establishment of buffer zones around occupied sites during the nursery 170
16 season (May 1 through October 1). During the non-nursery season, roosting bats may be evicted from buildings proposed for demolition under the supervision of a qualified biologist.

Implementation of this Standard would protect any bat species, including the pallid bat, occupying buildings and trees subject to removal.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.4-35 through 3.4-37) and 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-1) found that impacts related to the loss of special-status fish and their habitats would be less than significant and that General Plan policies would minimize, avoid, and compensate for potential direct and indirect effects on special-status fish. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) and National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) have no additional aquatic features mapped within the area. Therefore, a project consistent with the BDSP would not result in the loss of special-status fish or their habitats.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.4-37 through 3.4-40) and 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-1) discussed impacts related to the loss or disturbance of special-status fish and their habitats due to increased diversion of Sacramento River water to meet future demand and the potential for increased discharge of treated wastewater; impacts were found to be less than significant. The BDSP refines the General Plan. Therefore, a project consistent with the BDSP would not result in increased diversion of Sacramento River water to meet future demand or increased discharge of treated wastewater beyond what was analyzed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.4-40) and 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-1) found that impacts related to the potential for in-water construction projects and maintenance activities to result in the loss or disturbance for special-status fish and their habitats would be less than significant with mitigation. 2016 General Plan Mitigation Measure BIO-6 was implemented to revise General Plan Policy NCR-2.13, which applies to development and in-water construction and maintenance activities that may affect fishery resources in the Sacramento River, Deep Water Ship Channel, and Lake Washington. A project consistent with the BDSP would not result in development, inwater construction, or maintenance in the Sacramento River, Deep Water Ship Channel, or Lake Washington; therefore, 2016 General Plan Mitigation Measure BIO-6 is not applicable. In-water construction projects are described in the 2016 General Plan EIR as bridge, pier, and boat dock construction and include activities such as dredging. A project consistent with the BDSP would not result in bridge, pier, or boat dock construction; therefore, there would be no impact related to the loss or disturbance for special-status fish and their habitats due to in-water construction projects and maintenance activities.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.4-40 through 3.4-42) and 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-1) found that impacts related to the loss of oak woodland and valley foothill riparian habitat would be less than significant with mitigation. 2016 General Plan Mitigation Measure BIO-7 was implemented to revise General Plan Policy NCR-2.9 to include riparian and associated shaded riverine aquatic (SRA) cover habitat. Due to the highly developed nature of the project site, there are no oak woodland and valley foothill riparian habitat present, and Mitigation Measure BIO-7 does not apply. A project consistent with the BDSP would not have the potential to result in the loss of oak woodland and valley foothill riparian habitat and there would be no impact.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.4-42) and 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-1) found that impacts related to the loss of state- and federally protected wetlands and other waters through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means would be less than significant. NWI and NHD have no additional aquatic features mapped within the BDSP area.

General Plan Implementation Program Natural and Cultural Resources 1 indicates that the City will participate in the Yolo Habitat Conservancy Program. As described throughout this Consistency Analysis and in Appendix A to this Consistency Analysis (Yolo Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan Reporting Form), the Specific plan site is developed and as such, would generally not affect sensitive species or habitat.

Therefore, consistent with General Plan Policy NCR-2.9 and HCP Avoidance and Minimization 171
17 Measure 10, if a project is proposed within the project, the City will require that, prior to construction, the project proponent shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine if a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement is necessary for impacts. If it is, the project proponent will be required to apply for a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement and implement all conditions set forth in the permit. Policy NCR-2.9 and Avoidance and Minimization Measure 10 require:
► Policy NCR-2.9 No Net Loss. The City shall require new development to ensure no net loss of riparian habitat and associated shaded riverine aquatic (SRA) cover, State and Federally regulated wetlands, other waters of the United States (including creeks, rivers, ponds, marshes, vernal pools, and other seasonal wetlands), and associated functions and values by regulating development in and near these habitats and promoting projects that avoid sensitive areas. Where habitat loss is unavoidable, the City shall require replacement consistent with State and Federal regulations protecting riparian, SRA cover, and wetland resources. The replacement riparian, SRA cover, or wetland habitat should consist of locally occurring native species.
► AMM10: Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters. Project proponents will comply with stormwater management plans that regulate development as part of compliance with regulations under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Covered activities that result in any fill of waters or wetlands will also comply with requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and Regional Board regulations. Other than requirements for buffers, minimizing project footprint, and species-specific measures for wetland-dependent covered species, this HCP/NCCP does not include specific best management practices for protecting wetlands and waters because they may conflict with measures required by the USACE, State Board, Regional Board, and CDFW.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.4-42 through 3.4-43) and 2023 SEIR (3.3-1) found that impacts related to interfering 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 would be less than significant. As described above, cultivated trees and shrubs within the BDSP area have the potential to support numerous migratory birds, but if there is a project proposed within the project site, as detailed above, the City will require implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Measures 8 and 16 and Uniformly Applied Development Standard NCR-2.7a in order avoid any potential impact.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.4-43) and 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-1) discussed impacts related to conflicts with existing local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and found that implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts. A project consistent with the Specific plan would be subject to uniformly applied development standards in the form of required compliance with the City’s Tree Ordinance (Title 8 of the Municipal Code), which requires trees removed because of development to be replaced in accordance with the replacement schedule set forth for landmark, heritage and street trees.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.4-44) and 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-1) found that there would be no impact related to conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan because no natural community conservation plans had been updated at the time of the 2016 General Plan EIR. The Yolo County Heritage Program, a county-wide multispecies NCCP/HCP, was approved and adopted in 2019.

General Plan Policy NCR-2.2 requires cooperation with the Yolo County Natural Heritage Program. The project site is a previously disturbed infill site that would generally not affect sensitive species or habitat. However, as noted previously, the City will require HCP Avoidance and Minimization Measures 8 and 16, which require preconstruction surveys at the appropriate times and specified actions to avoid any adverse impact. 172
18 The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.4-44) and 2023 SEIR (page 3.3-1) found that impacts related to invasive plant species would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measure BIO12 was implemented to revise General Plan policies NCR-2.4 and NCR-2.14 to include language requiring protection measures to avoid and minimize the introduction and spread of invasive plants in all habitat mitigation requirements. Development activities under a project consistent with the BDSP could introduce new invasive plants into the area or contribute to the spread of existing invasive plants to uninfested areas outside the project area. Therefore, a project consistent with the BDSP would be subject to uniform development standards in the form of protection measures, as required by General Plan Policy NCR-2.4 (referenced previously). For potentially proposed publicly accessible open space or recreation areas that may be a part of a future project at the project site, Policy NCR-2.14 requires:

Policy NCR-2.14 Public Areas. The City shall ensure that public access and recreation facilities do not eliminate or degrade riparian habitat values. Trails, picnic areas, and other improvements shall be sited to minimize impacts on sensitive wildlife habitat or riparian vegetation.
173
19 Cultural Resources
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Cultural Resources. 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? Development within the Bridge District is within the scope of development projected under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR. The same properties that were assumed to develop under the General Plan EIR and SEIR are also assumed to potentially develop in the Bridge District. The land use change assumptions that were used to drive the analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR are consistent with those now assumed for this CEQA analysis in terms of a project consistent with the BDSP. The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the BDSP were addressed as a part of the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that would result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR or 2023 SEIR.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.5-11 through 3.5-12) and the 2023 SEIR (pages 3.5-2 through 3.5-3) found that impacts related to the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 would be significant and unavoidable. No historically significant built resources were identified within the project area. Therefore, a project consistent with the BDSP would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource and there would be no impact.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.5-12 through 3.5-13) and 2023 SEIR (pages 3.5-3 through

3.5-6) found that impacts related to the potential to cause a substance adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 would be significant and unavoidable. However, the potential for affecting previously unknown subsurface resources is unknown. A project consistent with the BDSP would be subject to uniformly applied development standards in the form of 2016 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure CUL-2 and General Plan Natural and Cultural Resources Implementation Program 25, and Mitigation Measure TCR-1. Mitigation Measure CUL-2, General Plan Natural and Cultural Resources Implementation Program 25, and Mitigation Measure TCR-1 require:

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Require appropriate treatment for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources. The City will require, through permit or tentative map conditions or contractual obligations, that in the event of any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, all such finds will be subject to PRC 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5.

Procedures for inadvertent discovery are listed below.
• All work within 100 feet of the find will be halted until a professional archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find in accordance with NRHP and CRHR criteria. • If any find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist, representatives of the City will meet with the archaeologist to determine the appropriate course of action. If necessary, a 174
20 Treatment Plan will be prepared by an archeologist, outlining recovery of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. The Treatment Plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to resuming construction.
• All significant cultural materials recovered will be subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and a report prepared by the professional archaeologist according to current professional standards.

General Plan Natural and Cultural Resources Implementation Program 25. The City shall require that when any subsurface cultural resources, paleontological resources, or human remains are encountered, all work within 100 feet of the discovery be stopped and the area protected from further disturbance until the discovery is evaluated. The resources shall be evaluated by qualified personnel to determine their significance and develop appropriate measures to avoid or protect valuable resources.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Consistent with current state statutory requirements, invite government to government consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes, assess impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR), avoid or preserve in place those TCR, and include culturally appropriate mitigation for significant impacts to identified TCR to the extent feasible. The City will invite government to government consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes that have requested consultation for both public and private sector projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consistent with current state statutory requirements. The City will also invite government to government consultation on projects with a Federal nexus, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, where applicable. The City will provide information about the project and its location, and specifically invite traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribes to provide information about known tribal cultural resources (TCR) that could be affected by proposed projects, and seek recommendations in the consultation process for mitigation that would avoid, preserve in place, or reduce potential impacts to such resources. The City will require projects subject to CEQA that have the potential for significant impacts to identified TCR to include government to government consultation with California Native American Tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area, assess the feasibility of avoidance or preservation in place of TCR, and minimize impacts with culturally appropriate, feasible mitigation. Based on the assessment, recommendations for mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to additional studies to evaluate identified sites, or tribal monitoring at locations determined by the City in consultation with the California Native American Tribe, supported by substantial evidence and considering the significance of the resource to the California Native American Tribe, to be culturally sensitive for TCR. If TCR are not identified that may be directly or indirectly impacted by the project, then mitigation is not needed.

In the event of the discovery of a previously unknown TCR inadvertently exposed or impacted during project implementation, a qualified archaeologist with expertise in TCR in the area will be retained by the project applicant to assess the discovery and provide mitigation recommendations as necessary. Such recommendations shall be reviewed in consultation with the impacted California Native American Tribe. When a project will impact a known TCR and avoidance is not a feasible option, a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American Tribe, shall evaluate the eligibility of the site for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources according to the criteria in Public Resources Code Section 21074. If the TCR is found to be a historical resource as Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(c), and considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21074, the qualified archaeologist shall recommend further mitigative treatment, which may include avoidance or preservation in place. Data recovery on a TCR, if necessary to support the historic resources evaluation, shall only be conducted in accordance with cultural practices and the written consent of the Tribe.
175
21 If TCR that also meet the definition of historical or unique archaeological resources are identified in the project area, the preferred mitigation to reduce impacts is avoidance, or preservation in place if avoidance is infeasible. Options for avoidance and preservation of the resource in place may include, but are not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resource and protect the cultural and natural context, planning greenspace, parks, or other open space to incorporate the resource with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria, treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, or permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21084.3.

If impacts cannot feasibly be avoided through project redesign, culturally appropriate and feasible mitigation measures will be required. These may consist of, but are not limited to, further evaluation, recognition of the significance of the area to the California Native American Tribe, or other mitigation measures determined to be feasible in consultation with the California Native American Tribe. If the recommendation is for further evaluation that includes data recovery, data recovery shall only be conducted in accordance with cultural practices and the written consent of the Tribe. If only part of a site is impacted by a project, and if data recovery is warranted, then data recovery will only be necessary for that portion of the site.

Destructive recovery of TCR will not be required if the City determines prior testing and studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from the resources, or if the impacted California Native American Tribe or Tribes participating in consultation objects to it.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.5-14) and 2023 SEIR (pages 3.5-6 through 3.5-7) found that impacts related to the disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries, would be significant and unavoidable. A project consistent with the BDSP would be subject to uniformly applied development standards in the form of 2016 General Plan EIR Mitigation Measure CUL-3, which would implement appropriate treatment for the discovery of human remains. Mitigation Measure CUL-3 requires:

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implement appropriate treatment for discovery of human remains. The City will require, through permit or tentative map conditions, that if human remains are discovered, all work shall cease in the vicinity (minimum of 100 feet) of the find and the Yolo County coroner will be notified immediately. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American in origin, the coroner will be responsible for notifying the NAHC, which will appoint a most likely descendant (MLD; PRC Section 5097.99). The project applicant, County, and MLD will make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the dignified treatment of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CCR Title 14 Section 15064.5[d]). The agreement should take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. The MLD will have 48 hours after notification by the NAHC to make their recommendation (PRC Section 5097.98). If the MLD does not agree to the reburial method, the project will follow PRC Section 5097.98(b), which states, “the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.”
176
22 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. 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?

DISCUSSION
Development within the Bridge District is within the scope of development anticipated under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR. The same properties that were assumed to develop under the General Plan EIR and SEIR are also assumed to potentially develop in the Bridge District. The land use change assumptions that were used to drive the analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR are consistent with those now assumed for this CEQA analysis in terms of a project consistent with the BDSP. The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the BDSP were addressed as a part of the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that would result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR or 2023 SEIR.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.7-14 through 3.7-17) and the 2023 SEIR (pages 3.7-6 through 3.7-11) found that, even with implementation of mitigation measures, there would be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact related to generation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for both construction and operation. As part of the 2023 SEIR, existing and future land use data were updated and used to create a new estimate of VMT, average daily travel along city streets, and GHG emissions under existing and future conditions. These new data show a decrease in GHG emissions through 2040 as compared to existing conditions – mostly attributable to a decrease in mobile source emissions due to improvements in vehicle technology and efficiency.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.7-18 to 3.7-20) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.7-11) found there would be a significant and unavoidable impact from conflicts with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Specifically, although development envisioned in the General Plan would be consistent with Assembly Bill 32 (which codified the State’s GHG emissions reduction targets through 2020), and SACOG’s MTP/SCS, overall emission levels would be inconsistent with the goals of Executive Order S-3-05 and Executive Order B-30-15. Executive Order S-3-05 calls for the State government to reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2010; to 1990 levels by 2020; and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Since certification of the 2016 General Plan EIR, Senate Bill 32 was signed, extending the provisions of Assembly Bill 32 from 2020 to 2030 with a new target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, in alignment with the goal established under Executive Order B-30-

15. The City is currently in the process of developing a climate action plan that would demonstrate local consistency with the State’s legislative framework for GHG emissions reduction.

Analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR includes emissions associated with implementation of the BDSP in the GHG emission estimates prepared for both the 2016 General Plan EIR (Table 3.7-6 page 3.7-17) and the 2023 SEIR (Table 3.7-1 page 3.7-7). A project consistent with the BDSP would consist of transit-oriented development designed to reduce VMT and emphasize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access – changes that would tend to reduce 177
23 GHG emissions and promote consistency with State efforts at reducing GHG emissions, as well as consistency with SACOG’s MTP/SCS. The BDSP provides for housing, retail, residential amenities, parking, a park, a public plaza, and a hotel – not any uses that have unusual GHG emissions rates or characteristics.
178
24 Hydrology and Water Quality
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
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:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site; ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; or
iii) 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
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

DISCUSSION
Development within the Bridge District is within the scope of development projected under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR. The same properties that were assumed to develop under the2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR are also assumed to potentially develop in the Bridge District. The land use change assumptions that were used to drive the analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR are consistent with those now assumed for this CEQA analysis in terms of a project consistent with the BDSP. The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the BDSP were addressed as a part of the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that would result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR or 2023 SEIR.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.9-46 through 3.9-51) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.8-3) found that potential violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements from future development (both construction and operation) would result in less-than-significant impacts. A project consistent with the BDSP would include construction and operational activities that would subject soil to stormwater runoff during the winter rainy season and could include increased pollutants from stormwater runoff on impervious surfaces after development. However, a project consistent with the Specific plan would be subject to uniform development standards in the form of preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementing associated Best Management Practices (BMPs) consistent with the State Water Resources Control Board’s Construction General Permit as part of the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) program. Furthermore, a future project applicant would be subject to uniform development standards in the form of incorporating Low Impact Development (LID) features specifically designed to provide operational water quality treatment at the source as required by the City’s Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) NPDES Permit. 179
25 Implementation of these local and state requirements would ensure that a project consistent with the BDSP would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.9-51 and 3.9-52) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.8-3) found that the potential for new development to deplete groundwater resources would be less than significant, because most of the recharge to the shallow groundwater aquifer occurs directly from the Sacramento River. Therefore, changes to the amount of impervious land cover would not be significant compared to the controlling factor of the water surface elevations in the Sacramento River and Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel. The Bridge District was formerly developed with buildings and pavement. Therefore, a project consistent with the BDSP would not result in a substantial increase in impervious surfaces as compared to current and previous conditions and furthermore would not cause a decrease in water supplies because it would not obtain its water supply from groundwater wells. Thus, a project consistent with the BDSP would also not result in conflicts with the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.9-52 through 3.9-55) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.8-3) found that alteration of drainage patterns from future development within the city would result in less- than-significant impacts from erosion, flooding, and stormwater drainage. A project consistent with the BDSP as with all other projects within the city, would be subject to uniform development standards in the form of implementing the construction and operational NPDES program requirements to ensure that additional increases in stormwater runoff and associated pollutants from development are adequately treated and managed. Furthermore, prior to issuance of building permits, a future applicant would be subject to uniform development standards in the form of submission of detailed stormwater drainage plans based on City standards to the City for review and approval.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.9-60 and 3.9-61) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.8-3) found that placement of structures that could impede or redirect flood flows would have a less-thansignificant impact. The City of West Sacramento is surrounded by flood control levees. If there is a levee breach, the city is subject to flooding by the Sacramento River. The West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (WSAFCA) together with the California Department of Water Resources, Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, are in the process of designing and constructing projects that meet the 200-year level of flood protection requirement imposed by updated state law and updated federal levee standards. Seven planned levee improvement projects to provide increased flood protection for the city have been completed, and three more are either in process or are planned (City of West Sacramento 2024). The Bridge District is in the City’s urban core area and has been in the past and still partially is today developed with buildings and parking areas. A project consistent with the BDSP would be subject to uniform development standards in the form of required compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance (Title 18 of the Municipal Code), which requires all development within a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) special flood hazard area to be constructed using floodproof methods and elevated to withstand flooding.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.9-61 and 3.9-62) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.8-3) found that the risk of release of pollutants due to project inundation within a seiche, tsunami, or flood hazard zone would be a less-than-significant impact. Due to the distance from the Pacific Ocean, the City is not susceptible to tsunami hazards. The Sacramento River, Yolo and Sacramento Bypasses, and the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel are susceptible to seiches. However, the danger of seiches during seismic events is limited to those periods when these waterbodies are full during the flood season. Overtopping of levees during this period could cause a limited amount of flooding in the city; however, the risk under these conditions is greatly reduced because the Sacramento River and Yolo and Sacramento Bypasses are at these flood stages for a limited time. Although implementation of a project consistent with the BDSP (as with all development contemplated under the General Plan) would increase the number of persons and property potentially at risk from seiche, it would not contribute to inundation depth if an event were to occur. Temporary construction-related storage of hazardous materials such as fuel, oil, 180
26 and paints at all locations within the city are potentially subject to inundation in the event of a levee breach. However, a project consistent with the BDSP would be subject to uniform development standards in the form of required compliance with the City’s Floodplain Management Ordinance (Title 18 of the Municipal Code), which regulates construction and storage of materials within special flood hazard zones. 181
27 Land Use and Planning
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Land Use and Planning. 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?

DISCUSSION
The Bridge District is within the scope of development projected under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR. The same properties that were assumed to develop under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR are also assumed to potentially develop in the Bridge District. The land use change assumptions that were used to drive the analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR are consistent with those now assumed for this CEQA analysis in terms of a project consistent with the BDSP. The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the BDSP were addressed as a part of the General Plan EIR and SEIR, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that would result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR or 2023 SEIR.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.10-5 and 3.10-6) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.10-1) found that development in the city would result in a less-than-significant impact from physical division of an established community. The types of features that could physically divide an established community include new roads through existing contiguous land uses, developments that prevent movement between existing land uses, and physical features such as sound walls that create barriers between or within existing land uses. A project consistent with the Specific plan would involve construction of buildings, parking areas, recreational spaces, drive aisles and connections to existing streets, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and water, sewer, drainage, and electricity improvements. No infrastructure would divide any existing developed neighborhood or community. There would be no division of an established community.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.10-7 and 3.10-8) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.10-1) found that new development in the city would result in a less-than-significant impact from conflicts with plans designed to avoid or mitigate adverse environmental impacts. The City regulates land uses within West Sacramento through its zoning and subdivision ordinances and, indirectly, through the goals and policies of its General Plan that guide development. The Bridge District implements the General Plan in the project area. Existing zoning standards would all be consistent with the General Plan 2035 and the 2023 General Plan update. As a compact, mixed- use, infill development in an area with relatively low vehicular travel demand (low VMT), a project consistent with the Specific plan would help facilitate the City’s goals related to promoting pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access and reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutant emissions, as well as similar goals in SACOG’s MTP/SCS. 182
28 Noise
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Noise. 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 or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
District is within the scope of development projected under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR. The same properties that were assumed to develop under the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR are also assumed to potentially develop in the Bridge District. The land use change assumptions that were used to drive the analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR are consistent with those now assumed for this CEQA analysis in terms of a project consistent with the Specific plan. The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the Specific plan were addressed as a part of the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that would result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR or 2023 SEIR.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.12-14 through 3.12-23) and the 2023 SEIR (pages 3.12-18 through 3.12-25) evaluated the potential impacts related to temporary and permanent increases in ambient noise levels. The 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR concluded that temporary construction-related noise and long-term traffic noise would likely exceed established noise standards, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts.

Consistent with the analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR and 2023 SEIR, construction activities associated with a project consistent with the BDSP could cause short-term, temporary noise impacts. These impacts are influenced by factors such as proximity to receptors, presence of barriers, type of equipment used, and duration of construction activities. However, a project consistent with the BDSP would be required to comply with uniform development standards outlined in Chapter 17.28 of the City’s Municipal Code, which addresses noise limitations and would need to implement Policy S-7.10 to reduce potential noise impacts related to construction. Policy S-7.10 requires:

Policy S-7.10 Acoustical Study. The City shall require new development that has the potential to generate noise that will exceed the levels contained in Tables S-7.1 through Table S-7.4 and may affect a noise sensitive use to prepare an acoustical study. The acoustical study shall: Be prepared by a qualified person experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics; the person preparing the acoustical study shall consult with Planning Division staff to review specific issues or circumstances prior to commencing the study; • Provide a general description of the project and the noise sources of concern; appropriate maps shall be included;
• Describe the methodology that will be used to assess noise impacts. If computer 183
29 models are to be used for noise predictions, they should be standard versions approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Caltrans, or other government agencies; • Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions and predominant noise sources;
• Estimate existing and projected noise levels and compare those levels to the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element; • Recommend appropriate mitigation to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element; where feasible, noise mitigation measures should focus on site planning and project design solutions rather than the creation of noise barriers; mitigation measures must be written with specific mitigation needed, and include any proposed follow-up noise monitoring if needed; and • Estimate noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented.

For operational noise, consistent with the analysis presented in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR, a project consistent with the BDSP could result in noise levels exceeding established standards for existing and future noise-sensitive uses, which includes noise generated from operational sources such as traffic and other fixed non- transportation sources. Specifically, traffic associated with the General Plan buildout could cause noise levels in outdoor activity areas near noise-sensitive uses to exceed the General Plan’s exterior noise standard of 65 dBA Ldn/CNEL for outdoor activity areas associated with multi-family residential development and lodging. A project consistent with the BDSP would be subject to uniform development standards in Chapter 17.28 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Noise measurements for the properties included within the BDSP area show that existing noise levels are consistent with the City’s exterior noise standards for outdoor gathering areas associated with multi-family residential development and lodging. Existing noise levels are 65 dBA Ldn in the eastern portion of the BDSP area, 60 dB Ldn in the northern portion, and 64 dBA Ldn in the western portion.

Additionally, consistent with the analysis presented in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR, a project consistent with the BDSP could generate stationary source noise from mechanical equipment, use of a park, landscape maintenance, and use of surface parking areas. A project consistent with the BDSP should be subject to Policy S-7.2 which requires development to mitigate noise impacts on noise-sensitive uses consistent with Table S-7.2 of the General Plan 2035 based on the existing peak noise level. Policy S-7.2 requires:

Policy S-7.2 Exterior Incremental Noise Standards. The City shall require new development to mitigate noise impacts on noise-sensitive uses where the projected increases in exterior noise levels exceed those shown in Table S-7.2 (Exterior Incremental Noise Impact Standards).

The maximum noise level BDSP plan area was measured as 90.8 dBA and the peak hourly noise level would be approximately 69 dBA. According to Policy S-7.2, stationary source noise attributable to a project consistent with the BDSP would be allowed a noise increment of up to 1 dBA in the outdoor gathering areas associated with the existing apartment building at 825 Cabaldon Parkway, for example.

The 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR state that noise from trains is not expected to increase significantly in the future compared to existing conditions. However, a project 184
30 consistent with the BDSP would be exposed to train noise. The 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR require that a project consistent with the BDSP comply with the City’s vibration standards in Chapter 17.28 of the Municipal Code and implement Policy S-7.11, which requires new vibration-sensitive developments to mitigate impacts if projected vibration levels exceed those specified in the General Plan standards. Policy S-7.11 requires:
► Policy S-7.11 Vibration Standards. The City shall require new development of vibration- sensitive land uses to mitigate vibration impacts where the projected vibration levels exceed those shown in Table S-7.4 in the General Plan update.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.12-23 to 3.12-25) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.12-25) identified that generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels would be significant and unavoidable, even with compliance with the vibration performance standards set in Table S-7.4 of the General Plan. A project consistent with the BDSP would be required to implement these mitigation measures to reduce potential effects on nearby sensitive receptors by monitoring and controlling vibration levels during construction activities, in line with the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR findings. Policy S-7.6 requires:
► Policy S-7.6 Vibration Standards. The City shall require construction projects and new development anticipated to generate a significant amount of vibration to ensure acceptable interior vibration levels at nearby noise-sensitive uses based on Federal Transit Administration criteria as shown in Table S-7.4 (Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment).

Because the Bridge District is not situated within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip, a project consistent with the BDSP would have no impact related to exposure of people to the excessive airport or aircraft noise levels.
185
31 Population and Housing
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Population and Housing. 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?

DISCUSSION
The Bridge District is within the scope of development projected under the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR. The same properties that were assumed to develop under the General Plan EIR and SEIR are also assumed to potentially develop in the BDSP area. The land use change assumptions that were used to drive the analysis in the General Plan EIR are consistent with those now assumed for this CEQA analysis in terms of a project consistent with the BDSP.

The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the BDSP were addressed as a part of the General Plan EIR and SEIR, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that would result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR or SEIR.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.13-6) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.13-1) found that new development in the City would result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to substantial population growth. The General Plan found that new homes or businesses would indirectly result in population growth through individual developments and the extension of roads and other infrastructure improvements as the city becomes more completely developed.

Development has long been planned for the BDSP area, and a proposed project consistent with the BDSP would be consistent with the City’s General Plan. Therefore, a project consistent with the BDSP would not induce substantial unplanned population growth.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.13-16 and 3.13-17) and the 2023 SEIR (page 3.13-1) found that, because the General Plan does not enable direct construction of new development, the impact from displacement of substantial numbers of existing people or housing would be less than significant.
186
32 Transportation
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Transportation. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? 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?

The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the BDSP were addressed as a part of the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that would result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.16-18) and the 2023 Draft SEIR (pages 3.16-6 through

3.16-7) identified a less-than-significant impact related to policy conflicts. The BDSP does detail bicycle and pedestrian facilities or multi-modal transportation, as a mixed-use development, a future project would be subject to uniformly applied development standards that typically include provisions for enhancing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access, as outlined in Chapter 17.09 of the City Municipal Code, and compliance with City street design standards. The BDSP includes a compact, mixed-use, infill development project in an area within West Sacramento that produces relatively low vehicular travel demand. Therefore, a project consistent with the current BDSP would not conflict with any existing program, plan, ordinance, or policy, maintaining consistency with the findings in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR.

CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b), was not explicitly addressed in the 2016 General Plan EIR. As explained in the 2023 SEIR, SACOG, pursuant to the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) incorporates State-developed GHG emissions targets for passenger vehicle emissions into a “sustainable communities strategy” as part of its regional transportation plan. SACOG has also developed analysis and mapping showing the location of low-VMT areas within the region. For residential generated VMT, most of the developed portion of West Sacramento – essentially all of the city north of the Deep Water Channel is in a low VMT area, as identified by SACOG – an area where the density, mix of land uses, access to non-vehicular transportation options, and other factors result in a reduced need for vehicular transportation compared to the balance of the region.1 VMT is a potential indicator of environmental effects from air pollutant emissions, GHG emissions, and transportation noise.

A project consistent with the BDSP would represent compact, mixed-use, infill development in a relatively low VMT area. A project consistent with the BDSP would help to reduce VMT. 187
33 The 2016 General Plan EIR did not specifically address hazards due to a geometric design features or incompatible uses. However, a project consistent with the BDSP would be subject to uniform development standards requiring compliance with Title 15 (Building and Construction) and Title 17 (Zoning) of the City’s Municipal Code, which includes implementing measures to ensure safety and design standards, as well as the City’s street design standards, which are designed to avoid introducing traffic-related hazards as a part of new development. Consistent with the analyses and mitigation measures presented in the 2023 Draft SEIR, the proposed project would not introduce any geometric design features or incompatible uses that would increase hazards.

The 2016 General Plan EIR did not specifically address emergency access in its impact analysis but included a General Plan policy requiring the identification of emergency access routes and ensuring that they are kept free of traffic impediments. The 2023 Draft SEIR (page

3.16-8) addresses emergency access under Impact TRA-9 and finds a less-than-significant impact related to inadequate emergency access. A project consistent with the BDSP would be required to meet the requirements of Chapter 15.14 (California Fire Code) of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the impact on emergency access for the proposed project remains consistent with the findings in the 2023 Draft SEIR. 1 Please see SACOG’s website for more details:
https://sacog.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0eac172e44514776b2f30e43246 52f88&extent=-13567338.6225%2C4599309.7898%2C13330078.0867%2C4789485.1162%2C102100 188
34 Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact Peculiar
to Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Tribal Cultural Resources. Would the 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 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 Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?

As detailed in the 2023 SEIR, when updating the General Plan in 2023, the City sent invitations to consult pursuant to SB 18 and AB 52 to all Native American tribal representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission and all Native American tribal representatives that have indicated to the City that they wish to be invited for consultation for projects subject to CEQA review. The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Wilton Rancheria, and Buena Vista Rancheria requested to consult. The City incorporated input from the Native American representatives into the updated General Plan and 2023 SEIR, including Mitigation Measure CUL-2b, which clarifies the consultation process and reduces potential impacts to tribal cultural resources, consistent with current state statutory and regulatory requirements. In addition, a project consistent with the BDSP should be conditioned to implement uniformly applied development standards in the form of General Plan Implementation Program 25 and Mitigation Measure CUL-2, which require actions to avoid impacts in the event of inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources. In addition, if an application is filed for a project on the project site, the City should condition the project to comply with Mitigation Measure CUL-2b, which is designed to reduce or avoid adverse impacts to significant archaeological resources, including those which are tribal cultural sources or are associated with a tribal cultural resource. 189
35 Utilities and Service Systems
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in GP
EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by
the General
Plan EIR, SEIR
and/or Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, 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 that 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?

DISCUSSION
Development within the Bridge District is within the scope of development projected under the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR. The same properties that were assumed to develop under the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR are also assumed to potentially develop in the Bridge District. The land use change assumptions that were used to drive the analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR are consistent with those now assumed for this CEQA analysis in terms of a project consistent with the BDSP. The impacts, then, associated with a project consistent with the Specific plan were addressed as a part of the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2023 SEIR, and there are no project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or the site that would result in additional impacts beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR or SEIR.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.17-16 through 3.17-19) found that new development in the city would result in less-than-significant impacts from construction of new utilities. A project consistent with the BDSP would be subject to uniformly applied development standards in the form of stormwater drainage plans prepared according to City standards and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. A project consistent with the BDSP would also be subject to uniformly applied development standards in the form of City review and approval of wastewater and water conveyance facilities, as well as other utilities including electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (page 3.17-19) found that new development in the City would result in a significant and unavoidable impact from the increased water demand resulting from population growth through implementation of new and redevelopment. The City’s primary water source is the Sacramento River via an intake structure located at Bryte Bend, upstream from the confluence of the Sacramento and American rivers. Water withdrawn from the Sacramento River is treated at the City's George Kristoff Water Treatment Plant at 400 North Harbor Boulevard.

The 2016 EIR (page 3.17-7) also noted that the City had one operational groundwater well as a backup supply with a capacity of 2.3 million gallons per day, and a second well was planned to be constructed as supplemental backup to replace a well that was no longer operational. The backup supply was intended to meet the demands of the northern portion of West Sacramento outside the North Delta Water Agency’s (NDWA’s) boundary. 190
36 The Bridge District is within the NDWA’s service area (2016 EIR Figure 3.17-1, page 3.17-9). As noted in the 2016 EIR (page 3.17-19), the NDWA’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan documented 2010 water demand at 13,107 acre-feet per year and estimated that the demand in 2035 would increase to 23,920 acre-feet per year. The 2016 EIR also stated that due to uncertainties about the reliability of the water supply from the NDWA under all water year conditions, it is possible that water supplies would not be sufficient to meet the increased demand. A project consistent with the current Specific plan within the Bridge District. According to the City of West Sacramento 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, for 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040, and for single dry years, two dry years, and three dry years, the City has a surplus in water supply (City of West Sacramento 2016). Development within West Sacramento, including within the Bridge District, has been included in the City’s water demand analysis. Therefore, a project consistent with the Specific plan would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and therefore would not require additional water supply.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.17-16 through 3.17-18) found that new development in the City would result in a less-than-significant impact from increased demand for wastewater treatment because the existing capacity of the EchoWater Resource Recovery Facility (formerly Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant) will be sufficient for the next 40+ years, in part because SacSewer (formerly Sacramento County Regional Sanitation District) projects that per-capita consumption will fall by approximately 25 percent over the next 20+ years due to the installation of water meters and adoption of various water conservation mandates. As discussed above in Section 3.11, “Population and Housing,” future development within the Bridge District was accounted for in the 2016 General Plan. Therefore, a project consistent with the current Specific plan would not induce substantial unplanned population growth and therefore would not require wastewater treatment that is greater than the 2016 EIR forecast.

The 2016 General Plan EIR (pages 3.17-20 and 3.17-21) found that new development in the city would result in a less-than-significant impact related to generation of solid waste more than local infrastructure and compliance with solid waste standards. The Yolo County Central Landfill, which serves the City of West Sacramento, is expected to have adequate capacity until the year 2124 with a permitted capacity of 49 million cubic yards and a remaining capacity of more than 33 million cubic yards (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2024). In addition, a project consistent with the current Specific plan would be subject to uniformly applied development standards in the form of compliance with state laws and policy designed to reduce the future landfill waste stream and extend the lifespan of the landfill. For example, the California Green Building Code requires that at least 65 percent of construction and demolition waste be diverted from landfills. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires local agencies to implement source reduction, recycling, and composting that would result in a minimum of 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills.

Assembly Bill (AB) 341 subsequently established, as a State policy goal, that at least 75 percent of the solid waste that is generated must be source-reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. AB 341 also requires local jurisdictions to implement commercial solid waste recycling programs. Businesses that generate four cubic yards or more of solid waste per week or multifamily dwellings of five units or more must arrange for recycling services. AB 1826 requires businesses to recycle their organic waste.

As discussed above in Section 3.11, “Population and Housing,” future development within the Bridge District was accounted for in the 2016 General Plan. Therefore, a project consistent with the BDSP would not generate solid waste more than local infrastructure and would be required to comply with local and state solid waste standards designed to reduce the amount of waste to landfill.
191
37 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Issues Significant
Impact
Peculiar to
Project or
Project Site
Significant Impact
Not Identified in
GP EIR or SEIR
Not
Applicable
No Impact
Addressed by the
General Plan EIR,
SEIR and/or
Uniform
Development
Policies and
Programs
Hazards And Hazardous Materials. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? 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, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
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?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland
Discussion
The project site is located within the City’s Bridge District, which is a post-industrial redevelopment area that is currently being redeveloped with urban mixed-use residential and commercial uses in addition to the existing Sutter Health Park baseball stadium. Past industrial developments, railroad operations, and truck traffic have yielded some contamination within the District. Various cleanup efforts have been accomplished over the decades however some contamination still remains on the project site.

Site contamination has been known since at least 1980 as prior to use of the property by Sac Stucco it was used by a private company that reclaimed lead from lead acid batteries. This led to contamination of the property that was documented in various previous studies of the site.

Although there is known evidence of site contamination the site is not currently under any oversight by any regulatory agency with jurisdiction. Site contamination is an existing condition and acquisition of the property will not change the level of contamination or increase the risk of upset. The status quo will remain in place for an unspecified period.

The Bridge District is situated within the existing developed urban core of West Sacramento.

There are no areas of very high, high, or moderate wildfire hazards within or near the project site (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2024).

There is one K–12 school within one-quarter mile of the project site: The City of Dharma Realm operates a private elementary and middle school at 1029 West Capitol Ave. A project consistent 192
38 with the BDSP would not include manufacturing or industrial uses, and would only involve the use, transport, or storage of minor amounts of fuels, oils, paints, and household cleaning products. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations related to the use, transport, or storage of minor amounts of hazardous materials to reduce the potential for accidental spills is required by law for both construction contractors, future retail operators, and future residents. If there is lead-based paint or asbestos within existing structures to be demolished, as detailed in the 2016 General Plan EIR, occupational safety and health standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is responsible for assuring worker safety in the workplace. OSHA asbestos regulations are contained in 29 CFR. Lead-based paint regulations are described in the Lead-Based Paint Elimination Final Rule (24 CFR 33), governed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District Rule 9.9 (Asbestos) requires District consultation and permit issuance prior to commencing demolition or renovation work, if demolition, renovation, or removal of asbestos-containing materials is involved. Therefore, a project consistent with the BDSP would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal, or risk of accidental release of hazardous materials, and would not result in hazardous emissions or handle acutely hazardous substances or wastes within one quarter mile of a school. Because a project consistent with the BDSP would result in redevelopment of existing and previously developed sites, there would be no interference with emergency evacuation plans. Finally, there are no public or private airports in the vicinity of the project site.
193
39 AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Implement construction dust control mitigation measures described in YSAQMD’s CEQA Handbook (language added below from YSAQMD Handbook). • Water all active construction sites at least twice daily. Frequency should be based on the type of operation, soil, and wind exposure. • Haul trucks shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard. • Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose materials. • Apply non-toxic binders (e.g., latex acrylic copolymer) to exposed areas after cut and fill operations and hydroseed area.
• Apply chemical soil stabilizers on inactive construction areas (disturbed lands within construction projects that are unused for at least four consecutive days). • Plant tree windbreaks on the windward perimeter of construction projects if adjacent to open land.
• Plant vegetative ground cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. • Cover inactive storage piles.
• Sweep streets if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site. • Treat accesses to 100 feet from the paved road with a 6 to 12 inch layer of wood chips or mulch.
• Treat accesses to 100 feet from the paved road with a 6- inch layer of gravel.

Policy S-5.4 Sensitive Land Uses. The City shall ensure maintenance of adequate separation between sensitive land uses and facilities or operations that may produce toxic or hazardous air pollutants or substantial odors, consistent with California Air Resources Board recommendations.
194
40 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
► Policy NCR-2.4 Habitat Surveys. The City shall require site-specific surveys for discretionary development proposals that could potentially impact biological resources to determine if any significant wildlife habitat and vegetation resources will be adversely affected and, if so, to identify appropriate measures to avoid or mitigate such impacts.

Include protection measures to avoid and minimize the introduction and spread of invasive plants in all habitat mitigation requirements.
► AMM10: Avoid and Minimize Effects on Wetlands and Waters. Prior to construction, the project proponent shall consult with CDFW to determine if a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement is necessary for impacts. If it is, the project proponent will apply for a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement and implement all conditions set forth in the permit.

Project proponents will comply with stormwater management plans that regulate development as part of compliance with regulations under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. Covered activities that result in any fill of waters or wetlands will also comply with requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and Regional Board regulations. Other than requirements for buffers, minimizing project footprint, and species-specific measures for wetland-dependent covered species, this HCP/NCCP does not include specific best management practices for protecting wetlands and waters because they may conflict with measures required by the USACE, State Board, Regional Board, and CDFW.
► AMM 8: Avoid and Minimize Effects of Construction Staging Areas and Temporary Work Areas. Equipment staging and other temporary work areas will be restricted to the existing project footprint and adjacent rights-of-ways (such as adjacent roadways and bike lanes). No temporary work area will be in covered species habitat or other sensitive natural communities. ► AMM 8: Avoid and Minimize Effects of Construction Staging Areas and Temporary Work Areas. Project proponents should locate construction staging and other temporary work areas for covered activities in areas that will ultimately be a part of the permanent project development footprint. If construction staging and other temporary work areas must be located outside of permanent project footprints, they will be located either in areas that do not support habitat for covered species or are easily restored to prior or improved ecological functions (e.g., grassland and agricultural land). Construction staging and other temporary work areas located outside of project footprints will be sited in areas that avoid adverse effects on the following:
• Serpentine, valley oak woodland, alkali prairie, vernal pool complex, valley foothill riparian, and fresh emergent wetland land cover types. • Occupied western burrowing owl burrows. Occupied for the purpose of AMM8 means at least one burrowing owl has been observed occupying the burrow within the last three years. Occupancy of a burrow may also be indicated by owl sign at the burrow entrance, including molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance or perch site.
• Nest sites for covered bird species and all raptors, including noncovered raptors, during the breeding season.
► Project proponents will follow specific AMMs for sensitive natural communities (Section

Adjacent parcels under different land ownership will be surveyed only if access is granted or if the parcels are visible from authorized areas.
• If a construction project cannot avoid potential nest trees (as determined by the qualified biologist) by 1,320 feet, the project proponent will retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for active nests consistent, with guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000), between March 15 and August 30, within 15 days prior to the beginning of the construction activity. The results of the survey will be submitted to the Conservancy and CDFW. If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, a 1,320-foot initial temporary nest disturbance buffer shall be established. If project related activities within the temporary nest disturbance buffer are determined to be necessary during the nesting season, then the qualified biologist will monitor the nest and will, along with the project proponent, consult with CDFW to determine the best course of action necessary to avoid nest abandonment or take of individuals. Work may be allowed only to proceed within the temporary nest disturbance buffer if Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite are not exhibiting agitated behavior, such as defensive flights at intruders, getting up from a brooding position, or flying off the nest, and only with the agreement of CDFW and USFWS. The designated on-site biologist/monitor shall be on-site daily while construction-related activities are taking place within the 1,320-foot buffer and shall have the authority to stop work if raptors are exhibiting agitated behavior. Up to 20 Swainson’s hawk nest trees (documented nesting within the last 5 years) may be removed during the permit term, but they must be removed when not occupied by Swainson’s hawks.
• For covered activities that involve pruning or removal of a potential Swainson’s hawk or white-tailed kite nest tree, the project proponent will conduct preconstruction surveys that are consistent with the guidelines provided by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee (2000). If active nests are found during preconstruction surveys, no tree pruning or removal of the nest tree will occur during the period between March 1 and August 30 within 1,320 feet of an active nest, unless a qualified biologist determines that the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active.
► Comply, as applicable, with Chapter 8.24 of the City of West Sacramento Code of Ordinances, Tree Preservation.
► Uniformly Applied Development Standard NCR-2.7a Conduct pre-demolition 196
42 surveys for bats and take appropriate action. Conduct a pre-demolition survey for bat species prior to demolition or removal of any structure or tree no more than 48 hours prior to demolition or removal. Conduct the survey at dusk – one hour before dusk and three hours after or other survey period determined by a qualified biologist to adequately determine whether a structure or tree is occupied by bat species to observe any foraging bat exit and entry behavior from roost sites. If bat species are determined to be present, a qualified biologist will oversee appropriate avoidance measures, which may include establishment of buffer zones around occupied sites during the nursery season (May 1 through October 1). During the non-nursery season, roosting bats may be evicted from buildings proposed for demolition under the supervision of a qualified biologist. ► Policy NCR-2.9 No Net Loss. The City shall require new development to ensure no net loss of riparian habitat and associated shaded riverine aquatic (SRA) cover, State and Federally regulated wetlands, other waters of the United States (including creeks, rivers, ponds, marshes, vernal pools, and other seasonal wetlands), and associated functions and values by regulating development in and near these habitats and promoting projects that avoid sensitive areas. Where habitat loss is unavoidable, the City shall require replacement consistent with State and Federal regulations protecting riparian, SRA cover, and wetland resources. The replacement of riparian, SRA cover, or wetland habitat should consist of locally occurring native species.
► Policy NCR-2.14 Public Areas. The City shall ensure that public access and recreation facilities do not eliminate or degrade riparian habitat values. Trails, picnic areas, and other improvements shall be sited to minimize impacts on sensitive wildlife habitat or riparian vegetation.
197
43 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Require appropriate treatment for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources. The City will require, through permit or tentative map conditions or contractual obligations, that in the event of any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, all such finds will be subject to PRC 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. Procedures for inadvertent discovery are listed below. • All work within 100 feet of the find will be halted until a professional archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find in accordance with NRHP and CRHR criteria.
• If any find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist, representatives of the City will meet with the archaeologist to determine the appropriate course of action. If necessary, a Treatment Plan will be prepared by an archeologist, outlining recovery of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. The Treatment Plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to resuming construction.
• All significant cultural materials recovered will be subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and a report prepared by the professional archaeologist according to current professional standards.

If TCR that also meet the definition of historical or unique archaeological resources are identified in the project area, the preferred mitigation to reduce impacts is avoidance, or preservation in place if avoidance is infeasible. Options for avoidance and preservation of the resource in place may include, but are not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resource and protect the cultural and natural context, planning greenspace, parks, or other open space to incorporate the resource with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria, treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, or permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21084.3.

If impacts cannot feasibly be avoided through project redesign, culturally appropriate and feasible mitigation measures will be required. These may consist of, but are not limited to, further evaluation, recognition of the significance of the area to the California Native American Tribe, or other mitigation measures determined to be feasible in consultation with the California Native American Tribe. If the recommendation is for further evaluation that includes data recovery, data recovery shall only be conducted in accordance with cultural practices and the written consent of the Tribe. If only part of a site is impacted by a project, if data recovery is warranted, then data recovery will only be necessary for that portion of the site.

Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Implement appropriate treatment for discovery of human remains. The City will require, through permit or tentative map conditions, that in the event that human remains are discovered, all work shall cease in the vicinity (minimum of 100 feet) of the find and the Yolo County coroner will be notified immediately. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American in origin, the coroner will be responsible for notifying the NAHC, which will appoint a most likely descendant (MLD; PRC Section 5097.99). The project applicant, County, and MLD will make all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the dignified treatment of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects (CCR Title 14 Section 15064.5[d]). The agreement should take into consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis, custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects. The MLD will have 48 hours after notification by the NAHC to make their recommendation (PRC Section 5097.98). If the MLD does not agree to the reburial method, the project will follow PRC Section 5097.98(b), which states, “the landowner or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance.” 199
45 NOISE
Policy S-7.10 Acoustical Study. The City shall require new development that has the potential to generate noise that will exceed the levels contained in Tables S-7.1 through Table S-7.4 and may affect a noise sensitive use to prepare an acoustical study. The acoustical study shall:
• Be prepared by a qualified person experienced in the fields of environmental noise assessment and architectural acoustics; the person preparing the acoustical study shall consult with Planning Department staff to review specific issues or circumstances prior to commencing the study;
• Provide a general description of the project and the noise sources of concern; appropriate maps shall be included;
• Describe the methodology that will be used to assess noise impacts. If computer models are to be used for noise predictions, they should be standard versions approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Caltrans, or other government agencies; • Include representative noise level measurements with sufficient sampling periods and locations to adequately describe local conditions and predominant noise sources;
• Estimate existing and projected noise levels and compare those levels to the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element; • Recommend appropriate mitigation to achieve compliance with the adopted policies and standards of the Noise Element; where feasible, noise mitigation measures should focus on site planning and project design solutions rather than the creation of noise barriers; mitigation measures must be written with specific mitigation needed, and include any proposed follow-up noise monitoring if needed; and
• Estimate noise exposure after the prescribed mitigation measures have been implemented.

Policy S-7.6 Vibration Standards. The City shall require construction projects and new development anticipated to generate a significant amount of vibration to ensure acceptable interior vibration levels at nearby noise-sensitive uses based on Federal Transit Administration criteria as shown in Table S-7.4 (Groundborne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment).

Policy S-7.2 Exterior Incremental Noise Standards. The City shall require new developments to mitigate noise impacts on noise-sensitive uses where the projected increases in exterior noise levels exceed those shown in Table S-7.2 (Exterior Incremental Noise Impact Standards).

Policy S-7.11 Vibration Standards. The City shall require new development of vibrationsensitive land uses to mitigate vibration impacts where the projected vibration levels exceed those shown in Table S-7.4 in the General Plan update.
200
46 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
► Natural and Cultural Resources Implementation Program 25: The City shall require that when any subsurface cultural resources, paleontological resources, or human remains are encountered, all work within 100 feet of the discovery be stopped and the area protected from further disturbance until the discovery is evaluated. The resources shall be evaluated by qualified personnel to determine their significance and develop appropriate measures to avoid or protect valuable resources.
► Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Require appropriate treatment for inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources. The City will require, through permit or tentative map conditions or contractual obligations, that in the event of any inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources, all such finds will be subject to PRC 21083.2 and State CEQA Guidelines 15064.5. Procedures for inadvertent discoveries are listed below.
• All work within 100 feet of the find will be halted until a professional archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find in accordance with NRHP and CRHR criteria.
• If any find is determined to be significant by the archaeologist, representatives of the City will meet with the archaeologist to determine the appropriate course of action. If necessary, a Treatment Plan will be prepared by an archeologist, outlining recovery of the resource, analysis, and reporting of the find. The Treatment Plan will be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to resuming construction. • All significant cultural materials recovered will be subject to scientific analysis, professional curation, and a report prepared by the professional archaeologist according to current professional standards.
► Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Consistent with current state statutory and regulatory requirements, invite consultation from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribal representatives, assess impacts, and reduce or avoid adverse impacts to significant archaeological resources, including those which are tribal cultural sources or are associated with a tribal cultural resource. • The City will invite consultation from traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribal representatives that have requested consultation for both public and private projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), consistent with current state statutory and regulatory requirements. The City will provide information about the project and its location and specifically invite traditionally and culturally affiliated Native American Tribal representatives to provide information about known archaeological or tribal cultural resources that could be affected by proposed projects and recommendation for mitigation that would avoid or reduce potential impacts to such resources. The City will require projects subject to CEQA that have the potential for adverse impacts on potentially significant archaeological resources, including those which are tribal cultural sources or are associated with a tribal cultural resource, to assess impacts and provide feasible mitigation. Based on the assessment, recommendations may include but are not limited to additional studies to evaluate identified sites or archaeological monitoring at locations determined by a qualified archaeologist in consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes to be sensitive for subsurface cultural resource deposits. If no archeological resources, including those which are tribal cultural sources or are associated with a tribal cultural source, are identified that may be directly or indirectly impacted by project activities, mitigation is complete. In the event of the discovery of a previously unknown archaeological site inadvertently exposed during project 201
47 implementation. In such an event, a qualified archaeologist will be retained to assess the discovery and provide management recommendations as necessary. ► When a project will impact a known archaeological site, including those determined to be a tribal cultural source, and avoidance is not a feasible option, a qualified archaeologist, in consultation with traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes, shall evaluate the eligibility of the site for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. If the archaeological site is found to be a historical resource as per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3), the qualified archaeologist shall recommend further mitigative treatment, which could include preservation in place or data recovery. If significant archaeological resources that meet the definition of historical or unique archaeological resources, including those determined to be tribal cultural resources, are identified in the project area, the preferred mitigation of impacts is preservation in place.

If impacts cannot feasibly be avoided through project design, appropriate and feasible treatment measures are required, which may consist of, but are not limited to actions, such as data recovery excavations. If only part of a site is impacted by a project, data recovery will only be necessary for that portion of the site. Data recovery will not be required if the implementing agency determines prior testing, and studies have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from the resources. 202
48 REFERENCES
AECOM. 2023. City of West Sacramento General Plan 2035 Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan Update, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 2022070293.

Available:
https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/commun ity-development/planning-division/general-plan-2035/general-plan- updates.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2024. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e724 7/.

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2024. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details, Yolo County Central Landfill (57-AA-0001).

Available:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/689?siteID=4033.

City of West Sacramento. 2016. City of West Sacramento 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.
. 2023. Updated General Plan Mobility Element and Bridge District Specific Plan. Available:
https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/community- development/planning-division/general-plan-2035/general-plan-updates. ———. 2024. Levee Projects. Available:
https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/city- manager-s-office/flood-protection/levee-projects-overview.

Geomatrix Consultants. 2004. Site Investigation Report and No Further Action Request, Golden Eagle Express, 800 Delta Lane, West Sacramento, California. Geomatrix Project No. 9226.001. Oakland, CA.

GRIBI Associates. 2010. Brownfield Site Cleanup Plan, 820-824 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, California. Benecia, CA.

Gutierrez, C.I. 2011. Preliminary Geologic Map of the Sacramento 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California. California Geological Survey. Sacramento, CA.

ICF International. 2016. City of West Sacramento General Plan 2035 Update, Draft Environmental Impact Report.

State Clearinghouse No. 2014042087. Available:
https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/community- development/planning-division/general-plan-2035. Accessed July 22, 2024.

O’Neal, M.D. and F.W. Gius. 2018. Mineral Land Classification: Concrete Aggregate In The Greater Sacramento Area Production-Consumption Region. Special Report 245. California Geological Survey. Sacramento, CA.

State Water Resources Control Board. 2024. GeoTracker. Available:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/.
203

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2026 ITEM # 11
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF OPTION AGREEMENT FOR THE MOSA APARTMENT HOMES AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT AT 817 WEST CAPITOL AVE. AND RESOLUTION 26-48 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WEST CAPITOL AVENUE STREETSCAPE

MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Raul Huerta, Housing Manager
Mark Polhemus, Community Investment Manager
Economic Development & Housing Department
ATTACHMENT [ X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [ X ] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to provide the City Council with information to consider approval of an Option Agreement for the MOSA Apartment Homes affordable housing development and adoption of Resolution 26-48 amending the West Capitol Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and Design Guidelines to remove redundant Grand Gateway Zoning District area parcels.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council:

1. Find that the recommended actions are not a project subject to CEQA because they are not an activity that may cause either a direct or foreseeable physical change in the environment (Pub. Resources Code, §21065; CEQA Guidelines §§15060(c), 15378(a));

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an Option Agreement for the MOSA Apartment Homes consistent with the terms included in this report;

3. Authorize the City Manager to take any other actions necessary to effectuate the transactions described in this agenda report, including but not limited to minor modifications to the Option Agreement terms, subject to the approval of the City Attorney; and

4. Adopt Resolution 26-48 directing staff to make the required edits to the West Capitol Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and Design Guidelines.

BACKGROUND
On June 26, 2024, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiating Agreement (“ENA”) with SKK Developments (“SKK”), E. Smith & Company (“ESC”), and Hudson Valley Property Group, LLC (“HVPG”), as amended by ENA First and Second Amendments, to develop City-owned Grand Gateway properties. The proposed development project comprises approximately 455 residential units (including 114 affordable rental units), ground-floor retail space, a hotel, public plaza, shared-use parking structure, and a potential park (see Attachment 2, Area Map).

As established in the ENA, ESC and HVPG focused on the affordable housing development component located at the former Rodeway Inn site at 817 West Capitol Avenue (see Attachment 1, Affordable Housing Site) while SKK leads the development of market-rate housing, retail, hotel, and other public uses on the balance of properties.

The Grand Gateway properties are uniquely located at the intersection of two City planning areas: Washington District Specific Plan, and the West Capitol Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and Design Guidelines (“Streetscape Master Plan”). As a result, these properties would have been subject to two different design and development standards, complicating future reuse opportunities. To resolve this issue, on February 19, 2025, the City Council adopted the Grand Gateway Zoning District and related actions to create unified development standards and streamline the environmental review process. Additionally, these actions were taken to ensure that future Grand Gateway development is consistent with the City’s vision of producing a higher density, mixeduse project for this area as specified in the General Plan. Unfortunately, an action to remove some of the parcels from the Streetscape Master Plan didn’t occur at that time and now needs to be done to avoid redundancies and confusion.

Since executing the ENA, staff and the project developers have accomplished additional key milestones to advance the overall project implementation. To facilitate the construction of the Grand Gateway affordable housing development, the Downtown Riverfront Streetcar Project (“Streetcar Project”), and local transportation improvements in West Sacramento, the City, Sacramento Regional Transit (“SacRT”), ESC and HVPG partnered to submit a grant application for the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (“AHSC”) grant and on 204
Option Agreement for MOSA Apartment Homes & Resolution 26-48 May 6, 2026

Page 2 ends

December 10, 2025, received an award of approximately $43 million. The awarded application includes multiple components listed below:

ASHC Grant Award Project Components Award Amount
Affordable Housing Construction Loan at 817 West Capitol Avenue $28,350,739 Streetcar Project Electric Vehicle Purchase and Station Improvements $8,750,000 Bike and Pedestrian Improvements in West Sacramento $4,749,000 Bus Shelter Improvements in West Sacramento $1,001,000
Affordable Housing Programs and Services $500,000
Total $43,350,739

ANALYSIS
The AHSC conditional award of $28,350,739 is a cornerstone of the MOSA Apartment Homes financing.

However, additional funding is required to fully capitalize the project. To secure the remaining project costs, the affordable housing development team intends to apply for Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) and other permanent financing as is common with most affordable housing projects.

A "minimum threshold" requirement for LIHTC and other major funding sources is the demonstration of site control. An Option Agreement fulfills this requirement by granting the developer an exclusive right to purchase the property under specific conditions that were previously identified, and approved by City Council, as part of the AHSC grant application.

Option Agreement for 817 West Capitol Avenue
The Option Agreement Term Sheet is included as Attachment 2. A summary of the terms include:

Provision Description
Optionor: City of West Sacramento, a California municipal corporation Optionee: West Sacramento Gateway LP, a California limited partnership Property: 817 West Capitol Avenue (APN 067-320-007)
Property Size: 1.8 acres
Project
Purpose:

The Streetscape Master Plan covers all properties along West Capitol Avenue from Houston Street to the west to the Grand Gateway area to the east. Despite recent changes to the roadway and parcel configuration and the recently adopted Grand Gateway Zoning District, some of the Grand Gateway Development area parcels erroneously remain in the Streetscape Master Plan. Resolution 26-48 is included as Attachment 3 and includes removal of select Grand Gateway District parcels from the Streetscape Master Plan to avoid redundancy and confusion. No other changes are proposed to the Streetscape Master Plan and it will remain intact and used for day-to-day site development standards by staff, property owners, and project sponsors for the remainder of the Streetscape Master Plan area.

Additionally, staff is continuing to work on the Washington Specific Plan Update, which includes multiple Grand Gateway parcels. When the Washington Specific Plan Update is considered for adoption, staff anticipate recommending similar actions to remove impacted Grand Gateway Development parcels to avoid redundancy and confusion.

Environmental Considerations
The actions recommended in this item are not a project subject to CEQA because they are not an activity that may cause either a direct or foreseeable physical change in the environment (Pub. Resources Code, §21065; CEQA Guidelines §§15060(c), 15378(a)). Projects supported by these actions have completed environmental review or will prior to receiving grant funds.
205
Option Agreement for MOSA Apartment Homes & Resolution 26-48 May 6, 2026

Page 3 ends

Commission Recommendation
No commission recommendation was solicited due to LIHTC application deadlines.

Strategic Plan Integration
The recommended actions are consistent with the City Council Strategic Plan goals, including the 2021-2025 Management Priorities of Grand Gateway Development. The recommended actions further support the City‘s mission statement: “to provide Quality Municipal Services, Quality City Infrastructure and Facilities, and to Inspire Community Improvements that add value to the lives of our residents.” Alternatives
The City Council’s primary alternatives to the recommended action include:

1. Decline the Option Agreement and consideration of Resolution 26-48;

2. Modify the Option Agreement terms; and/or

3. Delay approval of the Option Agreement and adoption of Resolution 26-48 until a later date.

These alternatives are not recommended as the Option Agreement is necessary for the developer to demonstrate "site control," which is a mandatory requirement for securing the Low-Income Housing Tax Credits and meeting the AHSC grant requirements, both of which are critical for the project's financing and construction of 114 much-needed affordable units. Delaying or electing not to approve the proposed Streetscape Master Plan modifications will subject development of the Grand Gateway area to overlapping and potentially conflicting development standards which could create project delays and design inefficiencies.

Coordination and Review
This report was prepared by the Economic Development and Housing Department in coordination with the Community Development Department and City Attorney.

Budget/Cost Impact
There are no budget/cost impacts to the City resulting from the recommended actions at this time. However, as the project moves forward, there may be a need for the City to commit funding for any financial gap identified. In the event this occurs, future City Council action will be required before the development team can proceed with the development of the project.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Affordable Housing Site Map

2. Option Agreement Term Sheet

3. Resolution 26-48
206
Affordable Housing Site
'l'l - e,r>,.?\,O\. r>,.\Jt.

Site Plan preliminary and subject to change.

SITE AREA
79,874 SF
�
� 0
�
Attachment 1
207
Attachment 2
Option Agreement Term Sheet
Option Agreement Summary of Terms
Provision Description
Optionor: City of West Sacramento, a California municipal corporation Optionee: West Sacramento Gateway LP, a California limited partnership Property: 817 West Capitol Avenue (APN 067-320-007)
Property Size: 1.8 acres
Project
Purpose:

Development of 114-unit affordable housing project targeting families at 30% to 60% AMI limits
Option Fee: $100.00, payable within three days of the Effective Date and credited against the Purchase Price
Option Term: Beginning April 2026 and expiring June 30, 2027 Purchase Price: $0
Key Conditions and Requirements
 Financing Contingencies: The transfer is contingent upon the Optionee successfully securing LowIncome Housing Tax Credits (TCAC) or other permanent financing. The Optionee has already received a conditional award of $28,350,739 from the AHSC Grant.  Exercise Conditions: Before exercising the option, the Optionee must:
o Agree with the City on the final form of the Purchase Agreement. o Approve the state of title and property condition.
o Complete the CEQA environmental review process.
o Complete the NEPA environmental review, if required.
 Property Access & Occupancy:
o Optionee may enter the property for investigations with three business days' notice. o The City currently operates a Homeless Emergency Housing Program on the property; the Optionee must not disturb occupants and must coordinate entry with the City.  Insurance: Optionee must maintain commercial general liability insurance with a $1,000,000 per occurrence limit and a $2,000,000 aggregate limit.

Closing and Development Obligations
 Closing Date: Occurs on or before the earlier of the construction loan closing or 210 days after the option is exercised.
 Costs:
o City Pays: Half of the escrow fee, all documentary transfer taxes, and standard CLTA owner's title insurance premiums.
o Optionee Pays: Half of the escrow fee, ALTA extended title coverage costs, lender's title insurance, surveys, and recording fees.
 Post-Closing Restriction: The grant deed will include a power of termination, allowing the City to repossess the property if the Optionee fails to secure approvals or begin construction on time. This restriction terminates once construction commences, provided a completion guaranty is in place. 208
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION 26-48

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST

SACRAMENTO APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE WEST CAPITOL

AVENUE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN AND DESIGN GUIDELINES TO

REMOVE THE GRAND GATEWAY ZONING DISTRICT AREA
WHEREAS, the City of West Sacramento desires to promote and protect public health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare; to provide a plan for sound and orderly development, and to ensure social and economic stability through adoption of site planning and architectural guidelines in key areas of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of West Sacramento in 2007 approved the West Capitol Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and Design Guidelines after a lengthy visioning and design process which resulted in the successful implementation of existing West Capitol Avenue streetscape improvements and building design enhancements; and
WHEREAS, the City of West Sacramento Council in 2013 adopted Resolution 13-6 approving the Grand Gateway Master Plan to guide infill, transit-oriented development standards for publicly owned properties located at the convergence of multiple planning areas; and WHEREAS, the City of West Sacramento has implemented the Grand Gateway Master Plan through the completion of pedestrian, cycling, and transit improvements and disposition of City-owned properties located on Delta Lane for the development of the West Gateway Place affordable housing projects; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2023, the City of West Sacramento declared the remaining Grand Gateway development opportunity parcels located at 811-826 West Capitol Avenue as exempt surplus land under the California Surplus Lands Act (Cal.Gov. Code§§ 54220 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2025, the City of West Sacramento adopted the Grand Gateway Zoning District to reflect current planning goals and provide clear, objective development standards for the Grand Gateway area under Ordinance 25-1; and WHEREAS, the Grand Gateway area is currently subject to multiple overlapping planning documents, including the West Capitol Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and Design Guidelines, the Washington Specific Plan, and the newly adopted Grand Gateway Zoning District; and WHEREAS, removal of the Grand Gateway Zoning District from the West Capitol Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and Design Guidelines will not affect the remainder of its boundary area, which will continue to guide streetscape and development standards along West Capitol Avenue; and
WHEREAS, a future update to the Washington Specific Plan is anticipated to remove the Grand Gateway Zoning District from that plan to ensure consistency with this action.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council take the following actions:
1) Approve an amendment to the West Capitol Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and Design Guidelines to remove all parcels within the Grand Gateway Zoning District area from the Plan boundary, as reflected in Exhibit A; and
2) Find that the Grand Gateway Zoning District shall serve as the primary regulatory framework for development within the Grand Gateway area; and 3) Direct staff to implement this amendment and incorporate corresponding updates into future planning documents, including the Washington Specific Plan; and 4) Determine that no other changes to the West Capitol Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and Design Guidelines are made or authorized by this Resolution. 209
Resolution 26-48

Page 2 ends

PASSEDAND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento on this 6th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES: ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST: Approved as to form:

Jennifer Cusmire, City Clerk Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney CODIFY X UNCODIFY__
210
West Capitol Avenue Streetscape Master Plan Area
Grand Gateway Zoning District
Overlapping Areas
Boundary areas approximate.

Attachment 3 - Exhibit A
West Capitol Avenue Streetscape Master Plan and
Grand Gateway Zoning District Areas
211

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2026 ITEM # 12
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 26-38 INITIATING THE LEVY OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1 INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Becky Robertson, Finance Manager
Finance Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to provide sufficient information to Council to adopt Resolution 26-38 initiating the levy of annual assessments for Landscaping and Lighting District #1.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 26-38, a Resolution of Intention initiating the levy of annual assessments for the Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 and establish the date of June 3, 2026 for a public hearing under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

BACKGROUND
State law provides for an annual proceeding prior to levying an ongoing assessment. The recommended action is the first step in this process. Because staff is not proposing an increase in assessments, this action does not trigger voter approval under Proposition 218.

Each year, the City levies assessments to pay for maintenance services and is required to take specific actions prior to transmitting the assessment to the Yolo County Assessor for inclusion on property owner tax bills.

On June 17, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution 87-102 approving the formation of West Sacramento Lighting and Landscaping District No. 1 (“the District”), pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (“the 1972 Act”). On April 1989, the City Council approved an amendment to the District that included: 1) an annexation of additional parcels into the S2 (Street Lighting) benefit zone, and 2) an annexation of additional parcels into Zone L1 (Landscaping).

The District provides street lighting and street landscaping maintenance services for property within the City of West Sacramento. It is divided into six zones, which includes the original district and subsequent annexations noted above. Each zone is comprised of the group of parcels that enjoys similar degrees of benefit from the service covered by the zone. Each parcel within the various zones is assessed its proportionate share of the cost of providing the service. The proportionate benefit and assessment is calculated in a benefit unit appropriate to the zone, depending on the type of service provided. The services provided and the unit of benefit for each zone in the district are shown below:

Zone Service Unit of Benefit Land Use Type
S1 Street Lighting Per Parcel Residential
S2 Street Lighting Front Footage Industrial
LS1 Street Lighting & Maintenance Front Footage Commercial L1 Maintenance Parcel Acreage Industrial
L2 Maintenance Per Parcel Residential
LSP2 Street Lighting & Maintenance Parcel Acreage Residential/Commercial Because each zone represents a different level of service and/or a different unit of benefit, each has a different fee. Fees are set each year by the City Council and are collected by Yolo County on the regular property tax bill.

ANALYSIS
The 1972 Act District was formed prior to enactment of Proposition 218 (“Prop 218”); an initiative approved by the voters in 1996 that imposed requirements on the manner in which local governments could raise taxes. For instance, any proposed increase in the rate for this District would be subject to super-majority approval by the voters pursuant to Prop 218. Hence, the City has chosen not to increase the rate for 2026-2027, as has been 212 Resolution 26-38
May 6, 2026

Page 2 ends

the case in previous years. The total assessment can change from year to year based on changes in parcelization within the District, an assessment factor that is described below, but the rate remains the same.

The 1972 Act requires that the City Council undertake annual proceedings for each fiscal year during which an assessment is to be levied and collected within the District. A report describing the manner in which the assessments are established is provided prior to a public hearing so that property owners may review and comment on the proposed assessment for the next fiscal year.

The City of West Sacramento Landscaping and Street Lighting District No. 1 Report for 2026-2027 is included as an attachment to this report and is referenced in Resolution 26-38. The report describes the method of assessment, budget, and rate schedule for the District for 2026-2027.

There are two steps in determining the appropriate fee:

1. Service costs must be allocated to each zone. Maintenance costs are allocated on a time and materials basis. Street lighting costs are allocated by the style of light and by the number of lights in each zone.

2. Zone costs are allocated to each property owner. On January 11, 1989, Council approved the following methods of allocation:
 Residential Lighting & Maintenance - per parcel
 Commercial Lighting & Maintenance - front footage
 Industrial Maintenance - parcel area (acreage)
 Industrial Lighting - front footage
Accordingly, the report for 2026-2027 incorporates these two steps in determining the diagram and assessments for 2026-2027. It consists of three parts: (i) a narrative, (ii) a proposed budget, and (iii) a rate schedule.

The proposed status quo budget for the District in 2026-2027 is $1,988,613. Because of the limitation on the ability to increase rates, budget increases for the District must also be offset by some amount of the Measure K Fund subsidy. The assessment for 2026-2027 is projected to generate revenues of $398,149. Therefore, the subsidies from the Measure K and General Fund are projected to be $1,590,463.

Resolution 26-38 preliminarily accepts the Report for 2026-2027 and sets a public hearing for Wednesday, June 3, 2026.

Environmental Considerations
Not applicable
Commission Recommendation
Not applicable
Strategic Plan Integration
The City has a Strategic Plan goal to achieve a Financially Sound City Government. Ongoing management of existing financing districts is a critical tool available to the Administrative Services Department to achieve this goal.

Alternatives
As an alternative to the proposed action, the City Council may choose to continue this item and or modify the date for the proposed public hearing. The deadline for submitting the levy to the County for inclusion on the 2026-2027 tax roll is August 10, 2026, and holding a public hearing is a requirement for submitting the levy. If Council selects to continue this item or set a different date for public hearing, a special meeting would be required.

Coordination and Review
Not applicable.

Budget/Cost Impact
Fees for services such as these support a higher level of service than can be supported by general taxes alone.

In fiscal year 2026-2027, a projected contribution of $1,590,463 from the Measure K and General Fund is required to maintain this service.
213
Resolution 26-38
May 6, 2026

Page 3 ends

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 26-38

2. Report for 2026-2027

3. Map of Lighting and Landscaping District
214
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 26-38

A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO INITIATING THE LEVY OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1 WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council") of the City of West Sacramento (the "City") adopted Resolution 87-102 on June 17, 1987, ordering the formation of the City of West Sacramento Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 (the "Assessment District") pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being California Streets and Highways Code sections 22500 et seq., (the "Act"); and
WHEREAS, the Act requires the Council to undertake proceedings annually for any fiscal year during which an assessment is to be levied and collected within an existing Assessment District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution 92-45, adopted on June 10, 1992, the Council has appointed the Finance Director as Engineer for the Assessment District for purposes of the annual proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the Finance Director has prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report for assessments to be levied in fiscal year 2026-2027 in accordance with the Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento as follows:

Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct, and this Council so finds and determines.

Section 2. Approval of Report for 2026-2027. This Council hereby approves the Report for 2026-2027 as filed.

Section 3. Declaration of Intention. This Council hereby declares its intention to levy and collect assessments in the City of West Sacramento Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 for fiscal year 2026-2027.

Section 4. Description of Improvements. The improvements proposed to be financed by the Assessment District are the maintenance and servicing public lighting facilities, and streets.

Section 5. Location of District. The City of West Sacramento Landscaping and Lighting District No. 1 encompasses parcels throughout the City.

Section 6. Reference to Report for Particulars. A full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the Assessment District and the six zones of benefit, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district is set forth in the Report for 2026-2027. The Report recommends no change in assessments and is on file in the office of the Director of Finance, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, CA 95691, and is available for review by any interested member of the public during normal business hours.

Section 7. Notice of Public Hearing. On Wednesday, June 3, 2026, 7:00 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, California, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the levy of the proposed assessment.

Section 8. Publication of Notice. The City Clerk is directed to give notice of the public hearing by publishing notice of the public hearing in accordance with normal City practice.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the West Sacramento City Council this 6th day of May 2026, by the following vote:
215
Resolution 26-38

Page 2 ends

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
216
Attachment 2

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

LANDSCAPING AND STREET LIGHTING
DISTRICT #1
REPORT FOR 2026-2027
By

BECKY ROBERTSON

FINANCE MANAGER
217
2 INTRODUCTION
The West Sacramento Landscaping and Lighting District #1 (the “Assessment District”) provides street lighting and/or landscape maintenance construction and operation services for property within the City of West Sacramento. Previously these services were provided by the former East Yolo Community Services District and Yolo County, California, under the following assessment districts and service area:

Elkhorn Village Lighting District
Westfield Village Lighting Maintenance District
Oaks Lighting District
Arlington Oaks Lighting Maintenance District
West Capitol Avenue Landscaping Assessment District
Yolo County Service area #4 (portion including Touchstone CSA, & Port Center CSA) Port of Sacramento Industrial Park Landscaping Assessment District (proposed, not active in 1986-87)
In 1989, the Assessment District was amended by the City to provide an equitable assessment to each parcel for the landscaping and street lighting benefit. Several zones were consolidated so that parcels that were more or less similarly benefited were grouped together and assessed by the same method of apportionment. All zones were analyzed in terms of the current land uses and how they may affect the way parcels benefit, how the particular improvement benefits each parcel and how the parcel dimensions affect the way individual parcels may benefit. Later development in the northeast section of West Sacramento created a need for two new assessment areas, which were established in May 1989. The two new assessment areas added were the S-1 Residential Street Lighting Zones, and the S-2 Industrial Street Lighting Zones. Maps of the Assessment District zones are included as Exhibit “A”. It should be noted that the Assessment District was formed without an annual inflation escalator and, therefore, costs still reflect those included at the time of formation in 1989.

EXPLANATION OF ZONES
The West Sacramento Landscaping and Lighting District #1 is divided into six zones. Each zone is comprised of the group of parcels that enjoy similar degrees of benefit from the service covered by the zone. Each parcel within the various zones is assessed its proportionate share of the cost of providing the service. The proportionate benefit and assessment is calculated in a benefit unit appropriate to the zone depending on the type of service provided. The services provided and the unit of benefit for each zone in the district is shown below:

Zone Service Unit of Benefit Land Use Type
S1 Street Lighting Per Parcel Residential
S2 Street Lighting Front Footage Industrial
LS1 Street Lighting & Maintenance Front Footage Commercial L1 Maintenance Parcel Acreage Industrial
L2 Maintenance Per Parcel Residential
LSP2 Street Lighting & Maintenance Parcel Acreage Residential/ Commercial
218
3 METHODS OF APPORTIONMENT
As can be seen in the above table, there are many methods of benefit which can be used as a base of assessment. The units of benefit can vary from zone to zone due to the variety of land uses, parcel dimensions and benefits derived.

DESCRIPTION
Each zone is described in terms of the method of assessment used to assess the parcels in the zone. Previous reports determine which method of apportionment to be used.

These methods are briefly described as follows:

ZONE S1: The first zone is a street lighting zone located in the residential region of the City of West Sacramento. The parcels are more or less of similar size and the street lighting diagrams indicate the streetlights are dispersed rather evenly through the zone. The method of assessment is per parcel.

ZONE S2: Zone S2 is a street lighting zone in an industrial region. It is comprised of parcels of quite different dimensions and acreages. This variety of shapes and sizes indicates that the front footages of the parcels also vary proportionally. This zone is assessed by front footage.

ZONE LS1: The street lighting and maintenance Zone LS1 is a commercial zone of the City of West Sacramento in which all parcels benefited by the street lighting are also benefited by the landscaping. The zone is assessed on a front footage basis.

ZONE L1: This maintenance zone is located in the industrial region of the City. It is comprised of parcels of various dimensions and acreages. The method of assessment is parcel acreage.

ZONE L2: Zone L2 is a maintenance zone located in the residential regions of the City. Like Zone S1, the parcels are of uniform size and shape and are best assessed on a Per Parcel basis.

ZONE LSP2: This zone is located in the Washington Neighborhood/Raley's Landing area. This area receives street lighting and maintenance services.

The method of assessment is parcel acreage.

ASSESSMENT ROLL
An assessment roll is on file with the City of West Sacramento, California, and is a part of this report whether or not attached.

IMPROVEMENT PLANS
A set of plans showing lighting and maintenance improvements that are operated and maintained by the Assessment District is on file with the City of West Sacramento, California, and is part of this report whether or not attached. 219
4 UTILITIES
City Water a $14,589 $681 $47,170 $182,318 $36,782 $0 $281,540 PG & E b 742,313 208,129 168,017 0 0 0 1,118,459

MAINTENANCE
City Maintenance c 10,330 0 91,775 215,334 79,856 10,000 407,295

PROFESSTIONAL SERVICES
Yolo County d 6,627 275 89 151 1,109 0 8,250
City Administration d 124,230 5,150 1,668 2,823 20,791 0 154,662 Flood Assessments d 11,924 493 160 271 1,996 0 14,845
TOTALS: $910,013 $214,728 $308,879 $400,897 $140,534 $10,000 $1,985,052 Notes: (a) Location of Water Meter
(c) Location of Labor and Materials
(d) Number of Parcels Total may not tie due to rounding.

L2 LSP2 Total
(b) Location of Light Pole and/or Electric Meter
Budget Item
Method of Cost
Spread/Notes S1 S2 LS1 L1
220
!"#$
!"#$
(/!"#$
!"#$
!"#$ 5
80 80
50 80

RIVER RD
I 80 EB
I 80 WB
US 50 WB US 50 EB

JEFFERSON BLVD
F ST

WEST CAPITOL AVE

LINDEN RD

DAVIS RD
E ST

SOUTH RIVER RD

INDUSTRIAL BLVD

HARBOR BLVD

THORP RD

REED AVE

STONE BLVD

MARSHALL RD

PARK BLVD

OTIS AVE

ANNA ST
G ST

BEVAN RD

STONEGATE DR
5TH ST

SACRAMENTO AVE
3RD ST

KEGLE DR

TOWER BRIDGE GTWY

RIVERBANK RD

WESTACRE RD

CARRIE ST

SEAPORT BLVD

RAMCO ST
15TH ST
B ST

FIFTH ST
C ST

FOUNTAIN DR

HOBSON AVE

POPLAR AVE

CUMMINS WAY

MERKLEY AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

ANTIOCH AVE

ENTERPRISE BLVD

CHANNEL DR

PRIVATE RD

HIGGINS RD

VIRGINIA AVE

YOLO ST

RICE AVE

GREGORY AVE
I ST

LISBON AVE

PARTRIDGE AVE

MICHIGAN BLVD

TERMINAL ST

BRYTE AVE

CARLIN DR

LIGHTHOUSE DR

DELAWARE AVE

OAKLAND BAY DR
4TH ST
11TH ST

FRENCH AVE

CENTER RD

VILLAGE PKWY

GLIDE AVE

ALLAN AVE

ALABAMA AVE

NORTH HARBOR BLVD

PECAN ST

MAPLE ST

MEADOW RD
COUNTY RD 136

LAKE RD

HARMON RD

HARDY DR

COYOTE RD

MOJAVE DR

PARKWAY BLVD

WALNUT ST

CEBRIAN ST

SUTTER ST

RIVERFRONT ST
OAK ST

RAIDER LN

STILLWATER RD

IKEA CT

BETTY WAY

SOULE ST

THOR DR
6TH ST

GATEWAY DR

TAHOE ST

MARTIS ST

SAND CIR

SILVERWOOD RD

RIVERSIDE PKWY

STABLE DR

HOUSTON ST

SHORE ST

DEERWOOD ST

REUTER DR

OATES ST

ARTHUR DR

ARLINGTON RD

BENTON ST

FREMONT BLVD

ROCKROSE RD

PROSSER ST

GOLDEN GATE DR

HIGHLAND DR

SUMMERFIELD DR

TOPAZ RD
ELM ST

TEAL DR

RYER ISLAND ST

SIERRA RD

PROMENADE ST

MAUI ST

VATEN DR

KINSINGTON ST
I 80 WB US 50 EB OFF

LASSIK ST
2ND ST

HENSHAW RD

RIVERMONT ST

ROGERS ST

MARECA WAY

TRIANGLE CT

MILANO DR

LEMONTREE RD

JANET DR

ALDER WAY

HALYARD DR

HAVERHILL ST

ARUBA ST

GALVESTON ST

PALOMAR AVE

HAITI RD

COFFEEBERRY RD

MANZANITA WAY

VIOLET DR

MIKON ST

COMMERCE DR

DREW ST

CORANADO ST

TAMARACK RD

LAGOON LN

BALLPARK DR

TORTOLA RD

TURLOCK ST

MARTINIQUE ST

WIGEON ST

ASH AVE

HUME ST

HEADSLANE RD

OVERLAND CT

ASANTE LN

WATERFORD DR

MEADOWLARK CIR

GLADYS AVE

DORAN AVE

ALVIN ST

JACKSON ST

SEYMOUR AVE

RANDOLPH RD

LESLIE LN

SAN MARCO ST

WREN ST

SYCAMORE AVE

ALLAN AVE

SOUTH RIVER RD

TOWER BRIDGE GTWY
!"#$
!"#$
!"#$ (/!"#$
!"#$ 5
5 80
80 80
µ
\MAPPING\CITY_DATA\DEPARTMENTS\FINANCE\CURRENT\DATA\LIGHTING_LANDSCAPING\SHAPES_district_maps City of West Sacramento Mayl 2014 I.T. Division (916) 617-4529 1 inch = 3,000 feet
1 in = 0.57 miles
1:36,000
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Street Lighting Benefit Zone L1
Street Lighting Benefit Zone L2
Lighting and
Landscape
Districts
L1
L2
ATTACHMENT 3
221
!"#$
!"#$
(/!"#$
!"#$
!"#$ 5
80 80
50 80

RIVER RD
I 80 EB
I 80 WB
US 50 WB US 50 EB

JEFFERSON BLVD
F ST

WEST CAPITOL AVE

LINDEN RD

DAVIS RD
E ST

SOUTH RIVER RD

INDUSTRIAL BLVD

HARBOR BLVD

THORP RD

REED AVE

STONE BLVD

MARSHALL RD

PARK BLVD

OTIS AVE

ANNA ST
G ST

BEVAN RD

STONEGATE DR
5TH ST

SACRAMENTO AVE
3RD ST

KEGLE DR

TOWER BRIDGE GTWY

RIVERBANK RD

WESTACRE RD

CARRIE ST

SEAPORT BLVD

RAMCO ST
15TH ST
B ST

FIFTH ST
C ST

FOUNTAIN DR

HOBSON AVE

POPLAR AVE

CUMMINS WAY

MERKLEY AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

ANTIOCH AVE

ENTERPRISE BLVD

CHANNEL DR

PRIVATE RD

HIGGINS RD

VIRGINIA AVE

YOLO ST

RICE AVE

GREGORY AVE
I ST

LISBON AVE

PARTRIDGE AVE

MICHIGAN BLVD

TERMINAL ST

BRYTE AVE

CARLIN DR

LIGHTHOUSE DR

DELAWARE AVE

OAKLAND BAY DR
4TH ST
11TH ST

FRENCH AVE

CENTER RD

VILLAGE PKWY

GLIDE AVE

ALLAN AVE

ALABAMA AVE

NORTH HARBOR BLVD

PECAN ST

MAPLE ST

MEADOW RD
COUNTY RD 136

LAKE RD

HARMON RD

HARDY DR

COYOTE RD

MOJAVE DR

PARKWAY BLVD

WALNUT ST

CEBRIAN ST

SUTTER ST

RIVERFRONT ST
OAK ST

RAIDER LN

STILLWATER RD

IKEA CT

BETTY WAY

SOULE ST

THOR DR
6TH ST

GATEWAY DR

TAHOE ST

MARTIS ST

SAND CIR

SILVERWOOD RD

RIVERSIDE PKWY

STABLE DR

HOUSTON ST

SHORE ST

DEERWOOD ST

REUTER DR

OATES ST

ARTHUR DR

ARLINGTON RD

BENTON ST

FREMONT BLVD

ROCKROSE RD

PROSSER ST

GOLDEN GATE DR

HIGHLAND DR

SUMMERFIELD DR

TOPAZ RD
ELM ST

TEAL DR

RYER ISLAND ST

SIERRA RD

PROMENADE ST

MAUI ST

VATEN DR

KINSINGTON ST
I 80 WB US 50 EB OFF

LASSIK ST
2ND ST

HENSHAW RD

RIVERMONT ST

ROGERS ST

MARECA WAY

TRIANGLE CT

MILANO DR

LEMONTREE RD

JANET DR

ALDER WAY

HALYARD DR

HAVERHILL ST

ARUBA ST

GALVESTON ST

PALOMAR AVE

HAITI RD

COFFEEBERRY RD

MANZANITA WAY

VIOLET DR

MIKON ST

COMMERCE DR

DREW ST

CORANADO ST

TAMARACK RD

LAGOON LN

BALLPARK DR

TORTOLA RD

TURLOCK ST

MARTINIQUE ST

WIGEON ST

ASH AVE

HUME ST

HEADSLANE RD

OVERLAND CT

ASANTE LN

WATERFORD DR

MEADOWLARK CIR

GLADYS AVE

DORAN AVE

ALVIN ST

JACKSON ST

SEYMOUR AVE

RANDOLPH RD

LESLIE LN

SAN MARCO ST

WREN ST

SYCAMORE AVE

ALLAN AVE

SOUTH RIVER RD

TOWER BRIDGE GTWY
!"#$
!"#$
!"#$ (/!"#$
!"#$ 5
5 80
80 80
µ
\MAPPING\CITY_DATA\DEPARTMENTS\FINANCE\CURRENT\DATA\LIGHTING_LANDSCAPING\SHAPES_district_maps City of West Sacramento Mayl 2014 I.T. Division (916) 617-4529 1 inch = 3,000 feet
1 in = 0.57 miles
1:36,000
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Street Lighting and Maintenance Benefit Zone LS1
Street Lighting Benefit Zone LSP2
Lighting and
Landscape
Districts
LS1
LSP2
ATTACHMENT 3
222
!"#$
!"#$
(/!"#$
!"#$
!"#$ 5
80 80
50 80

RIVER RD
I 80 EB
I 80 WB
US 50 WB US 50 EB

JEFFERSON BLVD
F ST

WEST CAPITOL AVE

LINDEN RD

DAVIS RD
E ST

SOUTH RIVER RD

INDUSTRIAL BLVD

HARBOR BLVD

THORP RD

REED AVE

STONE BLVD

MARSHALL RD

PARK BLVD

OTIS AVE

ANNA ST
G ST

BEVAN RD

STONEGATE DR
5TH ST

SACRAMENTO AVE
3RD ST

KEGLE DR

TOWER BRIDGE GTWY

RIVERBANK RD

WESTACRE RD

CARRIE ST

SEAPORT BLVD

RAMCO ST
15TH ST
B ST

FIFTH ST
C ST

FOUNTAIN DR

HOBSON AVE

POPLAR AVE

CUMMINS WAY

MERKLEY AVE

EVERGREEN AVE

ANTIOCH AVE

ENTERPRISE BLVD

CHANNEL DR

PRIVATE RD

HIGGINS RD

VIRGINIA AVE

YOLO ST

RICE AVE

GREGORY AVE
I ST

LISBON AVE

PARTRIDGE AVE

MICHIGAN BLVD

TERMINAL ST

BRYTE AVE

CARLIN DR

LIGHTHOUSE DR

DELAWARE AVE

OAKLAND BAY DR
4TH ST
11TH ST

FRENCH AVE

CENTER RD

VILLAGE PKWY

GLIDE AVE

ALLAN AVE

ALABAMA AVE

NORTH HARBOR BLVD

PECAN ST

MAPLE ST

MEADOW RD
COUNTY RD 136

LAKE RD

HARMON RD

HARDY DR

COYOTE RD

MOJAVE DR

PARKWAY BLVD

WALNUT ST

CEBRIAN ST

SUTTER ST

RIVERFRONT ST
OAK ST

RAIDER LN

STILLWATER RD

IKEA CT

BETTY WAY

SOULE ST

THOR DR
6TH ST

GATEWAY DR

TAHOE ST

MARTIS ST

SAND CIR

SILVERWOOD RD

RIVERSIDE PKWY

STABLE DR

HOUSTON ST

SHORE ST

DEERWOOD ST

REUTER DR

OATES ST

ARTHUR DR

ARLINGTON RD

BENTON ST

FREMONT BLVD

ROCKROSE RD

PROSSER ST

GOLDEN GATE DR

HIGHLAND DR

SUMMERFIELD DR

TOPAZ RD
ELM ST

TEAL DR

RYER ISLAND ST

SIERRA RD

PROMENADE ST

MAUI ST

VATEN DR

KINSINGTON ST
I 80 WB US 50 EB OFF

LASSIK ST
2ND ST

HENSHAW RD

RIVERMONT ST

ROGERS ST

MARECA WAY

TRIANGLE CT

MILANO DR

LEMONTREE RD

JANET DR

ALDER WAY

HALYARD DR

HAVERHILL ST

ARUBA ST

GALVESTON ST

PALOMAR AVE

HAITI RD

COFFEEBERRY RD

MANZANITA WAY

VIOLET DR

MIKON ST

COMMERCE DR

DREW ST

CORANADO ST

TAMARACK RD

LAGOON LN

BALLPARK DR

TORTOLA RD

TURLOCK ST

MARTINIQUE ST

WIGEON ST

ASH AVE

HUME ST

HEADSLANE RD

OVERLAND CT

ASANTE LN

WATERFORD DR

MEADOWLARK CIR

GLADYS AVE

DORAN AVE

ALVIN ST

JACKSON ST

SEYMOUR AVE

RANDOLPH RD

LESLIE LN

SAN MARCO ST

WREN ST

SYCAMORE AVE

ALLAN AVE

SOUTH RIVER RD

TOWER BRIDGE GTWY
!"#$
!"#$
!"#$ (/!"#$
!"#$ 5
5 80
80 80
µ
\MAPPING\CITY_DATA\DEPARTMENTS\FINANCE\CURRENT\DATA\LIGHTING_LANDSCAPING\SHAPES_district_maps City of West Sacramento Mayl 2014 I.T. Division (916) 617-4529 1 inch = 3,000 feet
1 in = 0.57 miles
1:36,000
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Street Lighting Benefit Zone S1
Street Lighting Benefit Zone S2
Lighting and
Landscape
Districts
S1
S2
ATTACHMENT 3
223

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2026 ITEM # 13
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 26-39 INITIATING ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE ACT OF 1937 FOR STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (RALEY’S LANDING)
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Becky Robertson, Finance Manager
Finance Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to provide sufficient information to Council to adopt Resolution 26-39 initiating annual proceedings under the Storm Drain Maintenance Act of 1937 for Storm Drain Maintenance District # 1, Raley’s Landing.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 26-39 initiating annual proceedings and establishing the date for a public hearing to be conducted under the Storm Drain Maintenance District Act of 1937 (the “1937 Act”) for Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 1 (Raley’s Landing).

BACKGROUND
State law provides for an annual proceeding prior to levying an ongoing assessment; and the recommended action is the first step in this process. Because staff is not proposing an increase in assessment, this action does not trigger voter approval under Proposition 218.

All property inside the City is provided storm drainage services by one of three Reclamation Districts, including Reclamation District 900, and the Lighthouse Marina and Raley’s Landing storm drain maintenance districts.

Only one of these districts was formed under the 1937 Act, which includes approximately 79.66 acres within the “Raley's Landing” subarea of the Washington Neighborhood. The Raley’s Landing Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 1 (the District), has provided this service for many years via a special assessment district.

Storm drain facilities were first constructed in Raley’s Landing in 1964 to collect storm water runoff, convey it to a point adjacent to the Sacramento River levee, and pump it into the river. In 1989, the pumping facility was rebuilt as part of the Raley's Landing Assessment District and financed by the Raley’s Landing Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds (these bonds were completely repaid in December 2013). In order to pay for ongoing maintenance of the facilities, the City formed the District pursuant to Resolution 89-62. These assessments are continued on an annual basis in order to continue required maintenance. The fees for this service are set each year by the City Council and are collected by Yolo County on the regular property tax bill.

ANALYSIS
The District was formed prior to the enactment of Proposition 218 (“Prop 218”), an initiative approved by voters in 1996 that imposed requirements on the manner in which local governments could raise taxes. For instance, any proposed increases in the rate for the District would be subject to approval by the voters pursuant to Prop 218, hence the City has chosen not to increase the rate for 2026-2027, as has been the case in previous years.

The City of West Sacramento Storm Drainage Maintenance District No. 1 Assessment Report for 2026-2027 is included as an attachment to this report and referenced in Resolution 26-39. The report describes the method of assessment and rate schedule for the District for 2026-2027.

The expected assessment revenue for 2026-2027 is $11,867.

Since this District has only one zone of benefit, total operating costs need only be allocated to each benefiting property owner on a fair and equitable basis. The nexus basis for the assessment is the benefit per acre within the District boundaries, a rate that is currently set at $144.11 per acre.

The Report for 2026-2027, showing the nexus between benefit and property assessment, consists of two parts:
(i) a narrative and (ii) a rate schedule.
224
Resolution 26-39
May 6, 2026

Page 2 ends

The 1937 Act requires that the City Council hold a public hearing prior to the imposition of the assessment.

Resolution 26-39 preliminarily accepts the Report for 2026-2027 and sets a public hearing for Wednesday, June 3, 2026.

Alternatives
As an alternative to the proposed action, the City Council may choose to continue this item and/or modify the date for the proposed public hearing. The deadline for submitting the levy to the County for inclusion on the 2026-27 tax roll is August 10, 2026, and holding a public hearing is a requirement for submitting the levy. If the Council chooses to continue the item or set a different date for the hearing, a special meeting would be necessary.

Coordination and Review
Not applicable
Budget/Cost Impact
The expected assessment revenue for 2026-2027 is $11,867.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 26-39

2. Report for 2026-2027

3. Map of Storm Drain Maintenance District
225
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 26-39

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

INITIATING ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE ACT OF 1937 FOR STORM DRAIN MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (RALEY’S LANDING) WHEREAS, the City Council has ordered the formation of the City of West Sacramento Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 1 under the Storm Drain Maintenance District Act of 1937 (West Water Code - Appendix §42-1 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the City Council is required to annually confirm the diagram and assessment and file same with the County Auditor pursuant to the Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento as follows:

1. The City Council hereby appoints the Finance Director as Engineer of Record for purposes of proceedings under the Act and directs and orders the Engineer to prepare and file the Report for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 in accordance with the Act.

2. The City Council hereby approves the Report for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 as filed by the Finance Director.

3. A full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and benefit zone, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the district, is set forth in the Report. The Report recommends no change in assessments and is on file in the office of the Finance Department, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, California 95691, and is available for review by any interested member of the public during normal business hours.

4. On Wednesday, June 3, 2026 at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 1110 West Capitol Avenue, West Sacramento, California 95691, the City Council shall hold a public hearing on the levy of the proposed assessment.

5. The City Clerk is directed to give notice of the public hearing by publishing notice of the public hearing in accordance with normal City practice.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the West Sacramento City Council this 6th day of May 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
_________________________________
Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
226
Attachment 2

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

STORM DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT #1

REPORT FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027
By

BECKY ROBERTSON

FINANCE MANAGER
227
2 INTRODUCTION
Most property within the City limits is provided storm drainage services by one of the three Reclamation Districts. One exception is the approximately 85 acres in size storm drain maintenance area in the vicinity of what was formerly referred to as Raley's Landing, now encompassed within the Washington Neighborhood Area Plan. Since 1990, this area has been provided maintenance services via a special assessment district, Storm Drain Maintenance District No. 1 (“the District”). While additional storm drain maintenance districts were anticipated, no others were formed beyond this single district.

Facilities within the District were first constructed in 1964 as part of Reclamation District 811 (no longer in existence) to collect storm water runoff, convey it to a point adjacent to the Sacramento River levee and pump it into the river. In 1989, the pumping facility was rebuilt as part of the Raley's Landing Assessment District (also no longer in existence). These facilities are operated and maintained by the City of West Sacramento, using revenues collected under the procedures outlined below.

On May 10, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution 89-62 which formed the District pursuant to the Storm Drain Maintenance District Act of 1937, or “the 1937 Act”. Each year, the City Council conducts a public hearing to hear objections to the placement of assessments on the next year’s tax roll. Following the public hearing, staff submits the tax levy to Yolo County and, and the County collects the assessment on the regular property tax bill.

METHOD OF ASSESSMENT
Parcel acreage assessment is best suited for storm drainage improvements. The improvements themselves are centrally located, but the benefits of the storm drain improvements are spread to all parcels included within the District. This benefit is outlined in the “Diagram of Assessment for Storm Drain Maintenance Area No. 1, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk. The parcels themselves differ greatly in size and the Parcel acreage method of assessment address the fact that larger parcels will benefit more.

This takes into consideration the fact that the benefit is directly related to parcel size. The greater the parcel size, the more runoff occurs, the greater the assessment.

The parcel acreage can include only the portion of the parcel which falls within the boundaries of the watershed. A parcel which falls in more than one watershed will only be assessed for the acreage in this district.

Thus, the parcel acreage unit of benefit is based on parcel size. The total combined acreage of the parcels within a zone is divided by the cost of the assessment to determine a per-acre cost for the service. This amount is then multiplied by the number of acres or percentage of acre of each individual parcel to determine the amount to be assessed to each parcel. The larger the parcel, the larger the assessment will be.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Assessment Diagram: An assessment diagram referenced to the Yolo County Assessor Parcel Maps is on file with the City of West Sacramento, California, and is part of this report, whether or not attached.
228
3 Improvement Plans: A set of plans showing storm drainage improvements of the City of West Sacramento Storm Drainage Maintenance District #1 is on file with the City of West Sacramento, California, and is part of this report, whether or not attached.

Assessment Roll: An assessment roll is on file with the City of West Sacramento and is part of this report. Parcels with twelve digits are Yolo County Assessor Parcels numbers, those with nine digits are State Board of Equalization numbers.
2026–2027 RATE SCHEDULE
Benefit
Basis
Benefit
Units Rate
2026–2027
Estimated
Revenue
Prior Year
(2025–2026)
Benefit Units
Prior Year
(2025–2026)
Rate
Parcel Area 82.35 $144.11 $11,867.44 82.35 $144.11
It should be noted that the District was formed without an annual inflation escalator, and therefore costs still reflect those included at the time of formation in 1989. 229
5 F ST
E ST
G ST
5TH ST
3RD ST
US 50 EB
US 50 WB

KEGLE DR

JEFFERSON BLVD
B ST

FIFTH ST

FOUNTAIN DR
C ST

CUMMINS WAY
I ST

TOWER BRIDGE GTWY

LIGHTHOUSE DR
4TH ST
D ST

WEST CAPITOL AVE

SACRAMENTO AVE

DOUGLAS ST

ANNA ST
COUNTY RD 136

HARDY DR

RIVERFRONT ST

RIVER CREST DR
11TH ST
6TH ST
A ST

MERKLEY AVE

DREVER ST

REUTER DR

ANDREW ST

FREMONT BLVD

PARK BLVD

SOULE ST

WESTLAKE DR
7TH ST
2ND ST

ELDER DR

WEBSTER ST

RISKE LN

JULIAN DR

MEADOW RD

BEARDSLEY DR

JOAN ST

CASSELMAN DR

RICH ST

FAIRWAY DR

TABER ST

JAMES ST

ARTHUR DR

PIERCE ST

CARRIE ST

STEEL LN

BALLPARK DR

MARKET ST

WILLIAM ST

ROGERS ST

INGLEWOOD DR

MILL ST

BRIDGE ST

SHARIAN ST

WOODHAVEN PL

CHROMIUM LN

MARSTON ST
8TH ST

GREENWOOD AVE

DELTA LN

ELLIOT ST

MILTON ST

MICHIGAN BLVD

WELLAND WAY REGATTA LN

TRIANGLE CT

CHARLES ST

ELIZABETH ST

VIRGINIA AVE

CALIFORNIA ST

WATERCOLOR LN

LAUREL LN

GARDEN ST

VILLAGE CLUB DR

TOWER ST

GRAPHITE LN

WEST ST

METRO LN

HARRIET LN

ROLLING GREEN DR

MARINA WAY

WATERFRONT PL

MIDSTREAM LN

SANDS CT
2ND ST

TOWER BRIDGE GTWY
6TH ST
8TH ST
8TH ST
Storm Drain
Maintenance
District No. 1
!"#$
!"#$
!"#$ (/!"#$
!"#$ 5
5 80
80 80
µ
\MAPPING\CITY_DATA\DEPARTMENTS\FINANCE\CURRENT\DATA\LIGHTING_LANDSCAPING\SHAPES_district_maps City of West Sacramento Mayl 2014 I.T. Division (916) 617-4529 230

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2026 ITEM # 14
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 26-40 AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF

SPECIAL TAX ON THE SECURED ROLL IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE ORDINARY AD

VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES FOR EXISTING COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICTS FOR

AUTHORIZED CAPITAL FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Becky Robertson, Finance Manager
Finance Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this action is to collect a special tax associated with Community Facility Districts (CFDs) previously established by the City to fund capital improvements and make debt service payments on outstanding bond debt, and to have these taxes placed on the Yolo County secured property tax bill.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 26-40 authorizing the collection of a special tax and to place these taxes on the secured tax roll to be collected in the same manner as the ordinary ad valorem property taxes. Furthermore, the actions recognize that the collection of taxes will be used to pay outstanding bond debt and other purposes previously authorized by the City.

BACKGROUND
Since the City’s incorporation in 1987, the City has formed a number of special financing districts to fund capital improvements which are secured by land-based special taxes. This report deals with 17 “facility” financing districts managed by the City. Under the 1982 “Mello-Roos Act,” cities may issue municipal bonds to finance development projects with high capital costs and pay these costs over time by taxing property owners within the established district. If voters in the area have elected to become a Mello-Roos district, they are responsible for the repayment of these bonds through a special tax, imposed annually based on the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax approved by owners within the CFDs.

Accordingly, the following CFDs were established for the financing of certain capital improvements in and for the District:

Community Facilities District 8
Community Facilities District 9
Community Facilities District 10
Community Facilities District 11
Community Facilities District 12
Community Facilities District 14
Community Facilities District 15
Community Facilities District 16
Community Facilities District 17
Community Facilities District 18
Community Facilities District 19
Community Facilities District 20
Community Facilities District 21
Community Facilities District 23
Community Facilities District 24
Community Facilities District 27
Community Facilities District 29

ANALYSIS
The Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office at the County of Yolo requires that all special tax levies placed on the property tax rolls include an authorization approved by the City Council, and specifically identifies that the taxes collected will be used to make payments on outstanding bonded indebtedness and other authorized purposes.

The authorization described in Resolution 26-40 outlines the terms of the agreement between the County and the City for collecting the CFDs’ levies used to make debt service payments. 231 Resolution 26-40
May 6, 2026

Page 2 ends

The City also manages the placement of special taxes on the property tax rolls associated with “service” CFDs (service CFDs pay for maintenance of improvements once they are constructed), which is being addressed in a separate agenda report also scheduled for May 6, 2026.

Environmental Considerations
Not applicable
Commission Recommendation
Not applicable
Strategic Plan Integration
Adoption of special taxes to finance public facilities helps establish the strong financial base for the City.

Alternatives
While the Council may alternatively delay an action approving the levy of a special tax, the City is bound to levy the special tax on an annual basis pursuant to each bond issuance. The placement of special taxes on the tax roll is necessary to collect these taxes which secure outstanding bonded indebtedness. The respective bond documents for each district commit the City to collect these revenues to make required debt payments.

Coordination and Review
Yolo County has provided a draft resolution and reserved space on the fiscal year 2026-2027 tax roll.

Budget/Cost Impact
Fees for services such as these support a higher level of service than can be supported by general taxes alone.

The taxes include a city administrative fee to offset the staff costs of managing the districts.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 26-40

2. Facility CFD Map (Numeric)
232
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 26-40

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF SPECIAL TAX ON THE SECURED TAX ROLL

IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE ORDINARY AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES FOR

EXISTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS AND COMMUNITY FACILITY DISTRICTS FOR

AUTHORIZED CAPITAL FACILITY CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES
WHEREAS, the City of West Sacramento (hereinafter “City) requests the County of Yolo collect on the County tax rolls certain charges which have been imposed pursuant to section 53340 of Government Code of the State of California by the City for the following Districts:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby authorize, as follows:

1. The Auditor-Controller of Yolo County is requested to attach for collection on the County tax rolls those taxes, assessments, fees and/or charges, described in the recitals above.

2. The City warrants and represents that the taxes, assessments, fees and/or charges imposed by the City and being requested to be collected by Yolo County comply with all requirements of State law, including but not limited to Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218).

3. The City agrees to and shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officers, agents and employees (the "Indemnified Parties") from any and all claims, demands, liabilities, costs and expenses, damages, causes of action, and judgments, in any manner arising out of the collection by County of any of City's said taxes, assessments, fees and/or charges requested to be collected by County for City, or in any manner arising out of City's establishment and imposition of said taxes, assessments, fees and/or charges. City agrees that, in the event a judgment is entered in a court of law against any of the Indemnified Parties as a result of the collection of one of City's taxes, assessments, fees and/or charges, the County may offset the amount of the judgment from any other monies collected by County on behalf of City, including property taxes.
233
Resolution 26-40

Page 2 ends

4. The City agrees that its officers, agents and employees will cooperate with the County in answering questions referred to City by County from any person concerning the City's taxes, assessments, fees and/or charges, and that City will not refer such persons to County officers and employees for response.

5. The City agrees to pay such reasonable and ordinary charges as the County may prescribe to recoup its costs in placing on the tax rolls and collecting the taxes, assessments, fees and/or charges, as provided by Government Code sections 29304 and 51800.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the West Sacramento City Council, this 6th day of May, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
234
!"#$80
(/50 )*+,-80
!"#$5
!"#$80 !"#$5
0 1.1 Mile
8 )*+,-80
!"#$5
!"#$80 !"#$5
!"#$80
City Of West Sacramento May 2022 I.T. Division (916) 617-4529 26 1:32054
6 Riverpoint
8 Southport Industrial Park
9 Staple Project
10 Bridgeway Island
11 Southport Gateway
12 Raley's Field
14 Newport Estates
15 Pheasant Hollow
16 Bridgeway Lakes
17 Marshall Crossing & Parella
18 Southport Gateway unit 4
19 River Ranch
20 Bridgeway Lakes II
21 Palin Ranch Construction
23 Triangle Area
24 Bridgeway Lake North
26 Yarbrough
27 Bridge District
29 Port Towne
8 10
16 20
24 17
11 17
14 18
19 21
15 City of West Sacramento
Community "Facility" Districts 2022
CFD Numeric Districts
\MAPPING\CITY_DATA\DEPARTMENTS\FINANCE\CURRENT\PROJECTS\COWS_CFD_MAPS\2022 1 in = 0.51 miles
12 23
23 27
9 6
27 0 0.275 0.55 1.1
Miles
29 Attachment 2
235

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2026 ITEM # 15
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 26-41 AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF

SPECIAL TAX ON THE SECURED TAX ROLL IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE

ORDINARY AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES IN ORDER TO PAY FOR CERTAIN

MAINTENANCE SERVICES
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Becky Robertson, Finance Manager
Finance Department
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this action is to collect special tax to pay for certain existing Community Facility District (CFD) maintenance services and to have these taxes placed on the Yolo County secured property tax bill.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 26-41 authorizing the collection of special tax to pay for certain Community Facility District services on the secured tax roll in the same manner as the ordinary ad valorem property taxes.

BACKGROUND
Since the City’s incorporation in 1987, all tentative subdivision maps in Southport contain, as a condition of approval, mitigation measures for maintaining street landscaping and lighting. The following language in The Classics Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map # 4319, dated November 20, 1997, is typical:

Prior to or concurrent with the recording of a small lot final map, a Community Facilities District Special Tax shall be authorized for the purpose of and at an amount sufficient to maintain and operate street lighting and street landscaping. To the extent provided by law, this condition shall be binding on all successive property owners.

Accordingly, the following CFDs were established for the financing of certain maintenance services in and for the District:

Community Facilities District A (Gateway)
Community Facilities District B (Newport Estates)
Community Facilities District C (Bridgeway Island)
Community Facilities District D (Southport Industrial Park) Community Facilities District E (The Classics)
Community Facilities District F (Pheasant Hollow)
Community Facilities District G (Gateway Unit IV)
Community Facilities District H (Bridgeway Lakes)
Community Facilities District I (River Ranch)
Community Facilities District J (Parella)
Community Facilities District M (The Rivers)
Community Facilities District N (Parlin)
Community Facilities District O (Linden South)
Community Facilities District P (Ironworks)
Community Facilities District R (Bridge District)
Community Facilities District S (Port Towne)
The City determines the annual maintenance costs for each service district for the fiscal year. Next, the City prepares a list of the parcels subject to the special tax using the records of the County Assessor and other records of the City. The maximum annual special tax per unit has a 4-percent escalation factor each year starting with the base year (year in which the district was formed). Next, the City determines the special tax revenues available by taxing each final unit parcel up to 100 percent of the maximum annual special tax rate. The City requests the County of Yolo to collect on the County property tax rolls the special taxes levied on each parcel by the respective service district.
236
Resolution 26-41
May 6, 2026

Page 2 ends

ANALYSIS
Commencing in fiscal year 2009-2010, the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office at the County of Yolo has required that all special tax levies placed on the property tax rolls include an authorization approved by the City Council.

The authorization outlines the terms of the agreement between the County and the City for collecting the CFDs’ service charges.

The City also manages the placement of taxes on the property tax rolls associated with “facility” CFDs (facility CFDs pay for construction of capital facility improvements which are usually funded by the issuance of bonds), which is being addressed in a separate agenda report also scheduled for May 6, 2026.

Environmental Considerations
Not applicable
Commission Recommendation
Not applicable
Strategic Plan Integration
Adoption of special taxes and fees for service help establish the strong financial base necessary to provide quality services.

Alternatives
Not applicable
Coordination and Review
Yolo County has provided a draft resolution and reserved space on the fiscal year 2026-2027 tax roll.

Budget/Cost Impact
Fees for services such as these support a higher level of service than can be supported by general taxes alone.

All annual maintenance services are fully supported by the special tax.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 26-41

2. Maintenance Services CFD Map
237
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION 26-41

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF SPECIAL TAX ON THE SECURED TAX ROLL

IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE ORDINARY AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES IN

ORDER TO PAY FOR CERTAIN MAINTENANCE SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City of West Sacramento (hereinafter “City) requests the County of Yolo collect on the County tax rolls certain charges which have been imposed pursuant to Section 53340 of Government Code of the State of California by the City for the following Districts:

1. The special tax shall be collected on the secured real property tax roll in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem taxes are collected. The special tax shall have the same lien priority and be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in cases of delinquency as provided for ad valorem taxes. In addition, the provisions of Section 53356.1 of the Act shall apply to delinquent special tax payments. The Director of Administrative Services is authorized and directed to provide all necessary information to the Treasurer-Tax Collector of Yolo County and to otherwise take all actions necessary in order to effect proper billing and collection of the special tax, so that the special tax is levied and collected in sufficient amounts and at times necessary to satisfy the financial obligations of the District in each fiscal year.

2. The City agrees, upon reasonable written notice by Yolo County of any claim or challenge, to defend with counsel of its choice, indemnify and hold harmless Yolo County, its Board of Supervisors, officers, officials, agents and employees (collectively “the County”) against the payment of any liabilities, losses, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees and court costs, not due to the County’s own negligence or willful misconduct, which the County may incur in the exercise and performance of its powers and duties in placing these assessments onto the County roll and tax bills for the City.

3. The City agrees to pay such reasonable and ordinary charges as the County may prescribe to recoup its costs in placing on the tax rolls and collecting the taxes, assessments, fees and/or charges, as provided by the Government Code sections 29304 and 51800.

4. The City warrants and represents that the taxes, assessments, fees and/or charges imposed by the City and being requested to be collected by Yolo County comply with all requirements of State law, including but not limited to Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218).

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the West Sacramento City Council, this 6th day of May, 2026, by the following vote:
238
Resolution 26-41

Page 2 ends

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
239
CFD B
CFD R
CFD M-T2
CFD M-T1
CFD N-T2
CFD I
CFD G
CFD P
CFD O
CFD D
CFD C
CFD J
CFD H-T3
CFD E
CFD A
CFD H-T1
CFD F
CFD S
CFD H-T4
CFD R
CFD H-T2
CFD O
CFD N-T1
5 5
80 80
80 50
)*+,-80
!"#$5
!"#$ !"#$5 80
!"#$80
8 \MAPPING\CITY_DATA\DEPARTMENTS\FINANCE\CURRENT\PROJECTS\COWS_CFD_MAPS\2022 City Of West Sacramento May 2022 I.T. Division (916) 617-4529 0 1 Mile
1:28000 1 in = 0.44 miles
CFD A
CFD B
CFD C
CFD D
CFD E
CFD F
CFD G
CFD H-T1
CFD H-T2
CFD H-T3
CFD H-T4
CFD I
CFD J
CFD M-T1
CFD M-T2
CFD N-T1
CFD N-T2
CFD O
CFD P
CFD R
CFD S
City of City of
West West
Sacramento Sacramento
Community Community
"Facility" "Facility"
Districts Districts
Attachment 2
240

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2026 ITEM # 16
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 26-2 REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 12 (STREETS, SIDEWALKS, AND PUBLIC

PLACES) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Erin Ayala, Business Manager
Parks and Recreation Department
ATTACHMENT [X ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to facilitate the second reading and adoption of Ordinance 26-2 regarding amendments to Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places) of the City of West Sacramento Municipal Code.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council:
1) Find that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15301 and direct staff to file a Notice of Exemption; and
2) Waive the second reading, read by title and number only, and adopt Ordinance 26-2, amending Title 12 (Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places) of the Municipal Code regarding: Chapter 12.15 Skateboard Parks and Regulations Governing the use of Skateboard Parks within the city limits of the City of West Sacramento.

BACKGROUND
The skate park at Westacre Park was constructed in 2004. Chapter 12.15 of the City of West Sacramento Municipal Code relating to skateboard parks and regulations governing use of skateboard parks within the city limits of the City of West Sacramento and was adopted by City Council via Ordinance 03-14. Chapter

12.15 of the City of West Sacramento municipal code is intended to regulate skateboard parks to ensure the safety, health, and welfare of users by establishing park hours, rules for use, defining acceptable activities, and identifying prohibited activities.

On April 15th City Council approved the first reading of the proposed amendments without any clarifications or questions.

ANALYSIS
Since 2003, the City has evolved and so have its parks. The City has two new skate parks in construction at Westacre Park and Heritage Oaks Park, with completion expected spring and summer 2026 respectfully.

In addition to the skate facilities, two pump tracks will also be constructed at Westacre Park and Heritage Oaks Park, so use of those facilities will need to be regulated as well. Technology has changed since the Chapter 12.15 of the municipal code was initially adopted, and skate parks and pump tracks have new users to consider. In addition to skateboards and bicycles that have traditionally used these facilities, we must consider roller skates, in-line skates, rollerblades, scooters, and other coasting devices, e-bikes and other electrical
Chapter 12.15 of the City of West Sacramento Municipal Code is proposed to be amended as follows:

Defining the following terms:
 Motorized vehicle to include E-conveyances, E-skateboards, E-bikes, and E-scooters.  Pump track to mean surface that includes a circuit of rollers, banked turns, and features designed to be ridden completely by riders “pumping” – generating momentum by up and down body movement, instead of pedaling or pushing.
 Vehicle to include gasoline, electric, battery, or other fuel-powered devices by which any person  or object may be propelled, moved or drawn, including but not limited to go-karts, minibikes, motorized bikes, e-bikes, model boats, and model airplanes.  Redefine skateboard park to include pump tracks.
241
Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 56-2
May 6, 2026

Page 2 ends

4927-7178-6134.1 007203.004
 Clarifying that a Skateboard means a non-motorized board of any material, which has wheels attached to it and which is propelled or moved by human, gravitational, or mechanical power and to which there is not fixed any device or mechanism to turn or control the wheels.  Skates are defined as a non-motorized device worn or affixed to the feet with small wheels for skating on a surface other than ice.

Updating Regulations for Use
 Minor adjustments to the regulations for use in Section 12.15.030 to ensure internal consistency with definition updates.
 One new regulation prohibiting individuals from bringing any additional obstacles or other materials, such as ramps or jumps, into a skateboard park.

Environmental Considerations
This project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment and is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 as this involves no expansion of existing skateboard parks.

Commission Recommendation
On February 3, 2026, the Parks Recreation and Intergenerational Services Commission were provided with an update on the proposed changes to the municipal code as part of the Director’s Report. The Commissioners were generally supportive of the proposed modifications.

Strategic Plan Integration
Updating the Chapter 12.15 of the City of West Sacramento Municipal Code improves the regulation of skate parks and pump tracks with the City of West Sacramento, promoting the health and safety of our park users.

These municipal code updates align with Strategic Plan Principle: Parks & Open Spaces – Provide diverse outdoor options for recreation and communing with natural at any age.

Alternatives
The Council’s primary alternatives are summarized below:

1. Propose additional modifications to the Municipal Code and direct staff to return at a future date with additional information and/or a modified Ordinance; or

2. Decline to take action on this item, and direct staff to discontinue work on the proposed Municipal Code modification.

Coordination and Review
The proposed Municipal Code updates have been coordinated with the Community Development Department, the City Mangers Office, and the City Attorney’s Office.

Budget/Cost Impact
The proposed Municipal Code updates will provide for better regulation of skateboard parks within the City of West Sacramento. Better regulation will result in a cleaner, safer park for users, and reduce ongoing repair and maintenance costs.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance 26-2

2. Redline version of ordinance showing proposed amendments

3. Draft NOE for Ordinance 26-2
242
Attachment 1
4935-1703-6436.1 007203.004
ORDINANCE 26-02

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO AMENDING CHAPTER 12.15 OF THE

WEST SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL CODE GOVERNING SKATEBOARD PARKS The City Council of the City of West Sacramento does ordain as follows:

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

12.15 of the City of West Sacramento Municipal Code relating to skateboard parks and regulations governing use of skateboard parks. The City Council enacts this Ordinance in accordance with the authority granted to Cities by State law.

Section 2. Amending Chapter 12.15. Chapter 12.15 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 12.15

SKATEBOARD PARKS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING USE OF SKATEBOARD PARKS
§ 12.15.010. Definitions.

For purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as follows:
"Motorized vehicle" includes, but is not limited to, any and all vehicles commonly known as automobiles, motorcycles, E-conveyances, E-skateboards, E-bikes, and E-scooters. “Pump track” means a surface that involves a circuit of rollers, banked turns, and features designed to be ridden completely by riders “pumping” – generating momentum by up and down body movement, instead of pedaling or pushing.
"Skateboard" means a non-motorized board of any material, which has wheels attached to it and which is propelled or moved by human, gravitational, or mechanical power and to which there is not fixed any device or mechanisms to turn or control the wheels. "Skating" means the use of a skateboard or skates by an individual. "Skates" means a non-motorized device worn on or affixed to the feet with small wheels for skating on a surface other than ice.
"Skateboard Park" means an area designated as a skateboard park by the City of West Sacramento. The term "skateboard park" includes a pump track. “Vehicle” means and includes gasoline, electric or other fuel-powered or animal powered devices by which any person or object may be propelled, moved or drawn, including but not limited to go-karts, minibikes, motorized bikes, e-bikes, model boats and model airplanes.

Commented [AK1]: Recommend deletion because the
things we are allowing in the skateboard park are human powered.
243
4935-1703-6436.1 007203.004
§ 12.15.020. Safety equipment requirement.

Any individual skating, riding and/or using a skateboard, scooter, non-motorized bicycle, skates, rollerblades or adaptive or similar coasting device at a skateboard park must wear a helmet, elbow pads and kneepads.
§ 12.15.030. Regulations for use.

Individuals skating, riding, and/or using a skateboard, scooter, non-motorized bicycle, skates, rollerblades or adaptive or similar coasting devices at a skateboard park, and all persons in charge of minors who are riding, skating and/or using the skateboard park, are subject to the following regulations:

A. It is unlawful for an individual to use a skateboard park for any purpose other than skating or skateboarding, scooting, biking, rollerblading, pumping, or utilizing an adaptive or similar coasting device.

B. It is unlawful to operate any motorized vehicle, whether licensed or unlicensed, within any skateboard park. This section shall not apply to individuals performing work for the City.

C. It is unlawful for an individual to use and/or possess alcohol or drugs in a skateboard park.

D. It is unlawful for an individual to litter in a skateboard park.

E. It is unlawful for an individual to cause graffiti or tagging in or on a skateboard park.

F. It is unlawful for an individual to skate, skateboard, scooter, bicycle, rollerblade or utilize an adaptive or similar coasting device on railing or structures not intended to be ridden on, including, but not limited to, fences, handrails, or the outer railing of a skateboard park.

G. It is unlawful for an individual to bring any additional obstacles or other material, such as ramps or jumps, into a skateboard park for utilization.

H. It is unlawful for an individual not expressly authorized by the City to remain in a skateboard park when said park is closed for public use.
§ 12.15.040. Hours of operation.

The director of Parks and Recreation shall establish the hours of operation for a skateboard park. Such hours shall be posted at the skateboard park. § 12.15.050. Violation—Penalty.

Violation of Section 12.15.020 shall result in the removal of the individual from the skateboard park. Violation of Section 12.15.030 shall be an infraction punishable by:

A. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for a first violation; B. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars for a second violation within one year; and C. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars for each additional violation within one year. 244
4935-1703-6436.1 007203.004
Section 3. Severability. If any provision of this chapter, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of those provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable.

Section 4. Effective Date and Publication. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption, and pursuant to Resolution 99-46 was published in summary format prior to adoption, and a summary will be published within fifteen (15) days after adoption in a paper of general circulation published and circulated within the City of West Sacramento.

Section 5. Environmental Review. This project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, and is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 as this involves no expansion of existing skateboard parks.
245
4935-1703-6436.1 007203.004
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento this 6th day of May, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST: Approved as to form:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney CODIFY UNCODIFY __________
246
Attachment 2
4935-1703-6436.1 007203.004
ORDINANCE 26-02

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO AMENDING CHAPTER 12.15 OF THE

WEST SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL CODE GOVERNING SKATEBOARD PARKS The City Council of the City of West Sacramento, CA does ordain as follows:
§ 12.15.010 STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND PUBLIC PLACES § 12.15.040 Section 1. Purpose and Authority. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend Chapter

Section 2. Amending Chapter 12.15. Chapter 12.15 of the West Sacramento Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

CHAPTER 12.15

SKATEBOARD PARKS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING USE OF SKATEBOARD PARKS
§ 12.15.010. Definitions.

For purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as follows:
"Motorized vehicle" includes, but is not limited to, any and all vehicles commonly known as automobiles, motorcycles, E-conveyances, E-skateboards, E-bikes, and E-scooters. “Pump track” means a surface that involves a circuit of rollers, banked turns, and features designed to be ridden completely by riders “pumping” – generating momentum by up and down body movement, instead of pedaling or pushing.
"Skateboard" means a non-motorized board of any material, which has wheels attached to it and which is propelled or moved by human, gravitational, or mechanical power and to which there is not fixed any device or mechanisms to turn or control the wheels. "Skating" means the use of a skateboard or skates by an individual. "Skates" means a non-motorized device worn on or affixed to the feet with small wheels for skating on a surface other than ice.
"Skateboard parkPark" means an area designated as a skateboard park by the cityCity of West Sacramento. The term "skateboard park" includes a pump track. (Ord. 03-14 § 3)
247
4935-1703-6436.1 007203.004
“Vehicle” means and includes gasoline, electric or other fuel-powered or animal powered devices by which any person or object may be propelled, moved or drawn, including but not limited to go-karts, minibikes, motorized bikes, e-bikes, model boats and model airplanes. § 12.15.020. Safety equipment requirement.

Any individual skating or, riding and/or using a skateboard, scooter, non-motorized bicycle, skates, rollerblades or adaptive or similar coasting device at thea skateboard park must wear a helmet, elbow pads and kneepads. (Ord. 03-14 § 3)
§ 12.15.030. Regulations for use.

Individuals riding, skating, riding, and/or using a skateboard, scooter, non-motorized bicycle, skates, rollerblades or adaptive or similar coasting devices at a skateboard park, and all persons in charge of minors who are riding, skating and/or using the skateboard park, are subject to the following regulations:

A. It is unlawful for an individual to use thea skateboard park for any purpose other than skating or skateboarding. , scooting, biking, rollerblading, pumping, or utilizing an adaptive or similar coasting device.

B. It is unlawful to operate any motorized vehicle, whether licensed or unlicensed, within any skateboard park. This section shall not apply to individuals performing work for the City.

B.C. It is unlawful for an individual to use and/or possess alcohol or drugs in thea skateboard park.

C.D. It is unlawful for an individual to litter in thea skateboard park.

D.E. It is unlawful for an individual to cause graffiti or tagging in or on thea skateboard park.

E.F. It is unlawful for an individual to skate or skateboard, skateboard, scooter, bicycle, rollerblade or utilize an adaptive or similar coasting device on the fence orrailing or structures not intended to be ridden on, including, but not limited to, fences, handrails, or the outer railing of thea skateboard park.

F.G. It is unlawful for an individual to skatebring any additional obstacles or skateboard on the non-public property on which theother material, such as ramps or jumps, into a skateboard park is located. for utilization.

G.H. It is unlawful for an individual not expressly authorized by the cityCity to remain in thea skateboard park when said park is closed for public use. (Ord. 03-14 § 3) Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/WE5032 on 2026-03-02 City of West Sacramento, CA
§ 12.15.040 WEST SACRAMENTO CODE § 12.15.050
§ 12.15.040. Hours of operation.

The director of parksParks and community servicesRecreation shall establish the hours 248
4935-1703-6436.1 007203.004
of operation for a skateboard park. Such hours shall be posted at the skateboard park. (Ord. 03-14 § 3)
§ 12.15.050. Violation—Penalty.

Violation of Section 12.15.020 shall result in the removal of the individual from the skateboard park. Violation of Section 12.15.030 shall be an infraction punishable by:

A. A. A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for a first violation; B. A fine not exceeding two hundred dollars for a second violation within one year; and C. A fine not exceeding five hundred dollars for each additional violation within one year. (Ord. 03-14 §
C. Section 3) . Severability. If any provision of this chapter, or the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, to the extent it can be given effect, or the application of those provisions to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are severable.

Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/WE5032 on 2026-03-02Section 4. Effective Date and Publication.

This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption, and pursuant to Resolution 99-46 was published in summary format prior to adoption, and a summary will be published within fifteen (15) days after adoption in a paper of general circulation published and circulated within the City of West Sacramento.

Section 5. Environmental Review. This project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, and is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 as this involves no expansion of existing skateboard parks.
249
4935-1703-6436.1 007203.004
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of West Sacramento this 6th day of May, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST: Approved as to form:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney CODIFY UNCODIFY __________
250

Statutory Exemptions. State code number:

Project Location - City: ______________________ Project Location - County:

Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Reasons why project is exempt:

Lead Agency
Contact Person: ____________________________ Area Code/Telephone/Extension: _______________ If filed by applicant:

1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No Signature: ____________________________ Date:

Signed by Lead Agency Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2026 ITEM # 17
SUBJECT:

WORKSHOP ON OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE USE OF THE CITY-OWNED PROPERTY AT 427 C ST. AND 317 5TH ST.

INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ X ] Council [ ] Staff
[ ] Other
Doug Drozd, Deputy City Manager
City Manager’s Office
ATTACHMENT [ ] Yes [ X ] No [ ] Information [ X ] Direction [ ] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this item is to provide the City Council with options for the future use of the City-owned property at 427 C St. and 317 5th St. and to receive City Council input and direction to staff.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council receive staff's presentation on the options for future use of the City-owned property at 427 C St. and 317 5th St. and provide input and direction.

BACKGROUND
In 1993 and 1994, the West Sacramento Redevelopment Agency acquired two properties associated with the former Tony’s Mohawk Gas Station located at 427 C St. and 317 5th St. (5th Street & C Street Lot). The Redevelopment Agency subsequently removed existing structures and remediated contamination on the site using a grant from the State of California’s Underground Storage Tank Cleanup Fund to ready the site for future development.

In 2014, as part of that year’s Strategic Plan Policy Agenda Item “Food Hub Activities,” the City entered into a lease agreement with the Center for Land-Based Learning (CLBL) to develop an urban farm on the 5th & C Lot at a $1 per year cost to CLBL. In entering into this lease, the City identified several key objectives for the transitional use of the property as an urban farm, including:
 Revitalizing the community by converting vacant plots into an urban farm as a transitional use prior to vertical development;
 Providing healthy, locally grown food commercially to restaurants, schools, and residents;  Increasing the availability of fresh produce to food desert neighborhoods;  Providing new economic opportunities through land access and technical support to those interested in pursuing small-scale agriculture with special attention to beginning farmers who are most in need of land access and resources;
 Creating an additional food-related asset for the community that can provide value to other distribution systems;
 Decreasing City costs for maintaining vacant properties;  Fostering new food-based businesses, creating jobs for start-up farmers, and  Reducing urban blight.

The lease agreement with CLBL explicitly stated that, “the urban farm project will serve this property as a transitional use until future development occurs.” The City subsequently amended the lease agreement with CLBL in 2021 to make it a month-to-month term, allowing either party to terminate the agreement for any reason with 180 days’ notice.

In 2024, CLBL assigned the lease for the 5th & C Lot to Three Sisters Gardens (TSG) with the City’s approval.

This lease transfer retained the terms of the lease with CLBL, including the month-to-month term. According to its website, TSG currently operates three other urban farms in West Sacramento at 317 4th St., 700 Cummins Way, and 485 Regatta Lane.

Beginning in early 2025, representatives from TSG began contacting the City Council and staff regarding their desire to amend the lease agreement to a fixed term, which they indicate would allow them to build a permanent multifunctional structure on the site to support their programming. Subsequently, at its January 21, 2026, meeting, the City Council approved a request to place an item on a future agenda related to this request and the City’s long-term options for the use of the 5th Street & C Street Lot. Staff developed this agenda report in response to Council direction.
252
Workshop on 5th Street & C Street Lot
May 6, 2026

Page 2 ends

In February 2026, a representative from TSG formally requested a 10-year lease with future extensions offered in 10-year increments free of charge, so long as TSG remains in compliance with federal and state Department of Justice nonprofit requirements.

The 0.58-acre 5th Street & C Street Lot is currently zoned Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial (MU-NC), which the Zoning Code defines as follows:

The MU-NC Zone is intended to provide areas for a mix of medium-density residential units that support commercial retail, office, and open space uses. This Zone provides for lower intensity mixed-use development that contains a mix of residential townhomes, condominiums, and apartments that support pedestrian-oriented shopping, office, and open space. This Zone is intended to accommodate uses that provide essential daily services and retail needs as well as recreational amenities, within walking distance of the surrounding neighborhood. Residential densities range between 12.0 and 60.0 units per acre. This Zone implements the Neighborhood Commercial Mixed Use General Plan Land Use Designation.

ANALYSIS
After receiving TSG’s formal request, staff identified three primary options for the future use of the 5th Street & C Street Lot for the City Council’s consideration as outlined below:

1. Amend TSG’s lease agreement as requested by TSG
TSG has requested a 10-year lease agreement at zero cost, with options for future 10-year extensions beyond the original term. The City Council may consider this option if it wishes to allow TSG to build a permanent structure(s) on site to support TSG’s urban farm programming. TSG has indicated that it has funding and/or financing to support the construction of a facility that would support educational opportunities, provide restroom facilities and shelter from weather, and allow TSG to expand its programming. However, the City has not received any formal documentation indicating that this funding has been secured.

The City Council may also wish to consider this option in the context of its 2026 Strategic Plan Policy Agenda item titled “Local Non-Profit Services Impact Assessment”, which is currently being developed by staff. This assessment could reveal additional needs in the City’s non-profit sector, including a need for City financial support. In sum, this option should be viewed holistically in relation to the needs of the citywide non-profit sector and potential future requests by non-profits to use City properties.

The City Council should also consider that this option would preclude development of the site, as well as potential future property and sales tax returns emanating from such a development, for at least the initial 10-year term of the lease agreement. Additionally, such a lease may be subject to the terms of the Surplus Lands Act (SLA), which is a state mandate that generally governs how local public agencies dispose of publicly owned land to prioritize affordable housing. Finally, the long-term use of this mixed residential/commercial zoned site for non-housing use could impact the City’s General Plan and Housing Element.

2. Amend TSG’s lease agreement to a longer term at a market lease rate More typically, when the City owns a property for which it does not have an immediately identified development or use, it seeks to recoup market-rate value from the property. In this case, City staff consulted with Port of West Sacramento staff who regularly lease Port-owned property for commercial use. For unpaved lots, the Port charges approximately $0.08/square foot/month. Applied to the 25,265 square foot 5th Street and C Street Lot, this would mean a lease of $2,021/month.

In evaluating this option, the City Council should consider the City’s opportunity cost related to the longterm use of this property. While urban gardens provide several significant benefits to the community, the 5 th Street and C Street Lot is located in the Washington District, which has seen increasing infill development in recent years. A longer-term lease at market rate would provide the City with some financial return on the City's original vision of purchasing and cleaning up the property, with the intent to eventually redevelop the site.

3. Retain TSG’s current lease agreement
The final option that staff identified for the future use of the 5th Street and C Street Lot is to retain the status quo. While this option would presumably prevent TSG from expanding its current operations, it 253
Workshop on 5th Street & C Street Lot
May 6, 2026

Page 3 ends

would allow the City to retain flexibility in the use of its property. This option would retain the City’s original intent to eventually redevelop the site for housing and commercial uses on a prominent corner in the Washington District. This option would also allow TSG to continue its current operations and programming on a month-to-month basis, benefiting the community, until the City identifies a redevelopment opportunity.

Staff is not recommending a specific option for the future use of the 5th Street and C Street Lot; these options are presented within the historical context of this property in order to provide the basis for a City Council discussion and direction to staff on this topic. This list is not exhaustive, and the City Council may provide guidance on other options as it sees fit.

Commission Recommendation
N/A
Strategic Plan Integration
This item is not related to a specific Strategic Plan item.

Alternatives
This is a workshop item to receive Council direction on the future use of the City-owned property at 5th & C Streets. Staff has identified three primary alternatives for the Council to consider regarding future use of the property, as explained in the analysis section of this report. Staff is prepared to further analyze any of these options, or other options the City Council may wish to pursue.

Coordination and Review
City Manager’s Office staff prepared this item in consultation with the Economic Development & Housing Department, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Port of West Sacramento.

Budget/Cost Impact
Depending on the City Council’s direction to staff on which option to pursue, there could be an increase in City revenues through increased lease payments.

ATTACHMENT

1. 2014 Staff Report “Consideration of a Lease Agreement with Center for Land-Based Learning for an Urban Farm; Determination that Lease Agreement is Exempt Under CEQA; Consideration of a Grant to CLBL for $30,000.”

2. 2021 Lease Agreement Amendment with CLBL

3. Lease Assumption Agreement with TSG
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
AMENDMENT NO. 1
to the

LEASE AGREEMENT
between the

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
And
Center for Land Based Learning
Dated 3/25/14
This Amendment No.1 to the Lease Agreement between the City of West Sacramento and Center for Land Based Learning (CLBL) dated 3/25/14 is made and entered into this 18 day of January 2021. Except as expressly amended herein, the 3/25/14 Lease Agreement is in full force and effect.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, Center for Land Based Learning has had a agreement with the City to lease two City-owned properties located at 427 C Street and 317 5th Street for use as urban farm incubators, and
WHEREAS, the current Lease Agreement had an expiration date of March 25, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the City and CLBL wish to amend and extend that Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED by parties hereto to amend and extend said Agreement as follows:

I. Section 2. TERM OF AGREEMENT:

Section 2 of the Lease Agreement is hereby revised to read as follows:

The term of this Agreement shall be month-to-month. Either Party may terminate the Agreement by providing the other party with One Hundred Eighty (180) days’ written notice.

II. Section 24. TERMINATION:

Section 24 of the Lease Agreement is hereby revised to read as follows: The termination section as set forth in the Agreement dated 3/25/14, shall be revised to include the following:

CLBL acknowledges that upon termination of this Agreement, CLBL is not entitled to any relocation benefits, including lost profits or injury to business, and waives any right to claim such benefits.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as the date herein set forth.

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO
By:

Aaron Laurel, City Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 399DC4F2-D7D2-4801-B852-CB1F4F88D8BB 286

CENTER FOR LAND BASED LEARNING
By:

Mary Kimball, Executive Director

APPROVED AS TO FORM
By: Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney
ATTEST:

By: _
Yashin Abbas, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 399DC4F2-D7D2-4801-B852-CB1F4F88D8BB 287
23-12-19 Assignment and Assumption of Lease - CLBL to Three Sisters Gardens - FINAL.DOCX

ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF LEASE
THIS ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION OF LEASE (this “Assignment”) is made and entered into effective as of January 1, 2024 ("Effective Date") by and between Center for Land Based Learning ("CLBL"), a California non-profit corporation (“Assignor”), Three Sisters Gardens ("TSG"), a California non-profit corporation (“Assignee”), and City of West Sacramento, a California general law city ("City").

Recitals
This Assignment is made with respect to the following facts:

A. WHEREAS, City owns approximately 0.58 acres of real property (“Property”) made up of two contiguous empty lots, located at 427 C Street and 317 5th Street, Yolo County, APNs 010-481-001-000 and 010-481-002-000 in West Sacramento, California, as shown on the attached Exhibit “A”.

B. Assignor and City entered into a Lease Agreement, dated March 25, 2014, ("Lease") for the purpose of allowing CLBL to operate an urban farm incubator program on the Property as a transitional use until the Property was needed for future development. The Lease was subsequently amended in writing by the Parties on January 18, 2021. The term "Lease" as used in this Assignment means the 2014 Lease, as amended.

C. Assignor has requested that the City consent to the assignment of the Lease to Assignee.

D. Assignee has agreed to assume and perform all of liabilities and obligations previously performed by Assignor and arising under the Lease from and after the date hereof.

Assignment
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. Assignment and Assumption. Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee, and Assignee hereby accepts assignment of, all liabilities and obligations of Assignor under the Lease which relate to the periods from and after the Effective Date. Assignee agrees (a) to perform all obligations of Assignor under the Lease which are to be performed or which become due on or after the date hereof, including but not limited to any indemnification obligations; and (b) to provide confirmation of all insurance requirements to City. All references to "Center for Land Based Learning" or "CLBL" in the Lease shall be considered references to "Three Sisters Gardens" or "TSG".

2. Right of CLBL to Remove Existing Storage Containers. During the Lease, CLBL moved onto the Property two storage containers (the "Storage Containers"). CLBL will leave the Storage Containers on the Property for TSG's use when possession of the Property transfers to TSG.

Notwithstanding Section 10 of the Lease, at termination of the Lease, the Storage Containers will be disposed of as follows:

2.1 If the Lease is terminated by the City, CLBL will have the right, but not the obligation, to remove the Storage Containers at its own expense within 60 days of lease DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C2E56-7E26-4371-B0D6-CC8C630A12CD 288
23-12-19 Assignment and Assumption of Lease - CLBL to Three Sisters Gardens - FINAL.DOCX termination. If CLBL fails to remove the Storage Containers within the allowed time, the Storage Containers will become the property of the City.

2.2 If the Lease is terminated by TSG, CLBL will have the obligation to remove the Storage Containers at its expense within 60 days of lease termination. If CLBL fails to remove the Storage Containers within the allowed time, the City may cause the Storage Containers to be removed and any related expense will be an obligation of CLBL.

2.3 While the Storage Containers remain on the Property, TSG will be responsible for their use, maintenance and security in accordance with the provisions of the Lease applicable to materials under the lessee's control. In no event will the City be responsible for use, maintenance or security of the Storage Containers.

3. Successors and Assigns. This Assignment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties’ respective successors and assigns.

4. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed a duplicate original, and may be signed electronically. By signing this document in electronic form, the parties agree that this Assignment may be transmitted and signed electronically by all Parties, and that such signatures shall have the same force and effect as original signatures, in accordance with California law and regulations, including but not limited to Civil Code section 1633.7.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Assignment as of the date set forth above.

ASSIGNOR:

Center for Land Based Learning.
a California non-profit corporation
By: ____________________
Name:

Title:

ASSIGNEE:

Three Sisters Gardens.
a California non-profit corporation
By: ____________________
Name:

Title:

DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C2E56-7E26-4371-B0D6-CC8C630A12CD Alfred Melbourne
Director
Mary Kimball
CEO
289
23-12-19 Assignment and Assumption of Lease - CLBL to Three Sisters Gardens - FINAL.DOCX CITY:

City of West Sacramento
a California general law city
By: ____________________
Amanda Berlin, Assistant City Manager
ATTEST:

By: _________________________________
Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: __________________________________
Jeffrey Mitchell, City Attorney
DocuSign Envelope ID: E37C2E56-7E26-4371-B0D6-CC8C630A12CD 1/22/2024 | 10:15:23 AM PST
290
4910-2907-1768.2 007203.001

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: ITEM # 18
SUBJECT:

CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 26-28 APPROVING THE ADOPTION

OF A POLICY REGARDING DISRUPTION OF SERVICE IMPACTING PUBLIC TWO-WAY

REMOTE PARTICIPATION DURING A CITY COUNCIL MEETING
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
City Manager’s Office
ATTACHMENT [X] Yes [ ] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The objective of this report is to provide the City Council with the draft policy establishing procedures for the City Council when there is disruption of telephonic or internet service during an open session meeting of the City Council that prevents the public’s ability to attend or observe a meeting via two-way remote participation.

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 26-28 approving the policy establishing procedures for the City Council when there is disruption of telephonic or internet service during an open session meeting of the City Council that prevents the public’s ability to attend or observe a meeting via two-way remote participation.

BACKGROUND
On October 3, 2025, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill ("SB") 707 into law. SB 707 made major amendments to the Brown Act and is considered to be the biggest overhaul to the Brown Act in decades. One aspect of these major amendments was the creation of a new subcategory of legislative bodies called "eligible legislative bodies." SB 707 imposed additional Brown Act requirements onto eligible legislative bodies. West Sacramento City Council is an eligible legislative body because it is "a city council of a city with a population of 30,000 or more." (Government Code 54953.4(e)(2)(A)). This term applies specifically to city councils and not broader categories of Brown Act bodies.

Starting on July 1, 2026, all eligible legislative bodies must, except as specified, provide an opportunity for members of the public to attend meetings via two-way telephonic service or audiovisual service via the internet.

Relatedly, by July 1, 2026, each eligible legislative body must adopt a policy addressing procedures for recessing and convening a meeting in the event of a disruption to telephonic or internet services that prevent the public's ability to attend or observe a meeting. SB 707 requires that this policy be adopted as a regular item, not as an item on the consent calendar.

ANALYSIS
The attached policy is drafted to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 54953.4(b). The policy identifies when it does and does not apply, establishes procedures for the City Council to follow in the event of a disruption to telephonic or internet service that prevents the public from attending or observing a meeting, outlines what actions the Council may and may not take during such a disruption, and provides procedures for continuing a meeting if the disruption cannot be resolved.

The City Council will provide a two-way teleconference option for the public to attend meetings via Zoom.

Beginning July 1, 2026, the Council must ensure that if a disruption to the Zoom connection occurs that prevents public access, the meeting is recessed until the teleconference service is restored in accordance with this policy.

Environmental Considerations
N/A
Commission Recommendations
N/A
291
Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service Policy
May 6, 2026

Page 2 ends

4910-2907-1768.2 007203.001
Strategic Plan Integration
N/A
Coordination and Review
N/A
Budget Cost Impact
N/A

ATTACHMENTS
1) Draft Policy Number I-A-20: Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service 2) Resolution No. 26-28
292
4905-4076-3032.2 007203.001 1

CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
NUMBER: I-A-20
DATE:

SUBJECT: DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET

SERVICE POLICY
AUTHORITY: City Council

PURPOSE
The purpose of this policy is to establish procedures to be followed in the event of a disruption to telephonic or internet service that prevents members of the public from attending or observing an open session meeting of the City Council through two-way telephonic or audiovisual platforms (e.g., Zoom). These procedures are intended to ensure continued compliance with open meeting requirements and to maintain public access to City Council meetings to the extent possible during such disruptions.

This policy, and its requirements, shall not apply when a meeting of the City Council is held for the following reasons:
 Attend a judicial or administrative proceeding to which the local agency is a party.  Inspect real or personal property provided that the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the real or personal property.
 Meet with elected or appointed officials of the United States or the State of California, solely to discuss a legislative or regulatory issue affecting the City and over which the federal or state officials have jurisdiction.
 Meet in or nearby a facility owned by the City, provided the topic of the meeting is limited to items directly related to the facility.
 Meet in an emergency situation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.5.

POLICY
It is the policy of the City of West Sacramento to follow these procedures for recessing and reconvening upon disruption of two-way telephonic or internet services that prevents the public from attending or observing an open session meeting of the City Council.

PROCEDURE
Upon a disruption of two-way telephonic or internet services that prevents the public from attending or observing an open session meeting of the City Council, the City Clerk, or another member of City staff, shall immediately notify the City Council. Upon receiving such notification, the City Council shall immediately recess the open session meeting and may announce that the recess is due to a disruption of two-way telephonic or internet services that prevents the public from attending or observing the meeting.

During the recess, the City Council may meet in closed session.  During the recess, a good faith effort to restore the service shall be made. The City Council shall not reconvene the open session of the meeting until at least one hour following the disruption, or until the telephonic or internet service is restored, whichever is earlier. 293
Administrative Policy I-A-20
Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service
(continued)
4905-4076-3032.2 007203.001 2
 Upon reconvening the open session, if telephonic or internet service has not been restored after one hour of making a good faith effort to restore the service, the City Council shall adopt a finding be rollcall vote that good faith efforts to restore the telephonic or internet service have been made in accordance with this policy and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.  Upon adopting a finding by rollcall vote that good faith efforts to restore the telephonic or internet service have been made in accordance with this policy and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access, the City Council may continue with the meeting.

POLICY AMENDMENT
Any amendment to this policy shall be brought before the Council for consideration and adoption at a noticed public meeting in open session. Any amendments to this policy shall be adopted as a regular agenda item, not on the consent calendar.

ATTACHMENTS:

None.
294
4920-6853-8264.2 007203.001
RESOLUTION 26-28

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO

APPROVING THE DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE POLICY WHEREAS, on October 3, 2025, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill ("SB") 707 amending Government Code Section 54953.4 (the Brown Act); and WHEREAS, SB 707 requires city with a population of 30,000 or more to provide members of the public to have the opportunity to attend open session meetings of the City Council via twoway telephonic service or audiovisual service via the internet; and WHEREAS, West Sacramento City Council is an eligible legislative body because the population of the city exceeds 30,000; and
WHEREAS, as a regular item not on the consent calendar, each eligible legislative body must adopt a policy addressing procedures for recessing and convening a meeting in the event of a disruption to telephonic or internet services that prevent the public's ability to attend or observe a meeting.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of West Sacramento does here by adopt Administrative Policy I-A-20 Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Martha Guerrero, Mayor
ATTEST:

Jennifer Cusmir, City Clerk
295

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2026 ITEM # 19
SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER OBJECTIONS TO THE

PROPOSED REMOVAL OF WEEDS
INITIATED OR REQUESTED BY: REPORT COORDINATED OR PREPARED BY:
[ ] Council [X] Staff
[ ] Other
Bryan Jonson, Fire Marshal
Fire Department
ATTACHMENT [ ] Yes [X] No [ ] Information [ ] Direction [X] Action

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this hearing is to consider the objections of any parcel owner with respect to being included in the weed abatement program. Property owners have the option of voluntarily clearing the lots themselves prior to May 31, 2026, to avoid the special assessment tax against the parcel(s).

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing to consider objections to the proposed removal of weeds and direct staff to proceed with the 2026 weed abatement program.

BACKGROUND
On April 15, 2026 the City Council adopted Resolution 26-16, beginning the weed abatement process. On that date, the Council also approved a Public Hearing set for May 6, 2026, to hear objections from citizens regarding the weed abatement program. The City Council directed the Fire Department to provide written notice to all property owners identified in Resolution 26-16 by April 17, 2026. The purpose of this hearing is to consider objections from parcel owners with respect to being included in the weed abatement program.

ANALYSIS
In order to reduce the threat of vegetation fires in the coming months, the weed abatement program provides the structure to require property owners to mitigate nuisance properties; and for those who do not, provides us with the authority to abate as necessary. This public hearing is a necessary step in the process to eliminate the fire threat of nuisance vegetation.

The cost of weed abatement services performed by the City will be charged as a special assessment against the parcel property tax roll. Property owners have the option of voluntarily clearing the lots themselves prior to May 31, 2026, to avoid the assessment. Over 1,000 properties were sent notices and sites are currently being voluntarily abated.

Environmental Considerations
This item 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
This program assists the City in its efforts to reduce local climate vulnerability. By minimizing the fuel load in West Sacramento, this program will subsequently reduce the number of fires and smoke that pollute the atmosphere.

Alternatives
The public could be encouraged to object by way of written correspondence rather than being required to attend a public hearing.

Coordination and Review
The West Sacramento Fire Department is coordinating the weed abatement program. 296
Public Hearing to Consider Objections to the Proposed Removal of Weeds May 6, 2026

Page 2 ends

West Sacramento City CouncilMay 6, 2026

West Sacramento City Council
May 6, 2026