R. T Framework La

Final Environmental Impact Report for the

...... A R. T FRAMEWORK LA

Master Development Plan SCH #91063032 Oth:bf1994

/(EST I9

Prepared for The City of West Sacramento

Prepared by

WHIDAN ASSOCIATES ENG.NF1P.S & PLANNERS

I i I ID5Lk'i I II)iI WWi 1 '41 4 +

SOUTHPoRT FRAw wopm MASTER.DEVELOPMENT

Prepared for:

City of West Sacramento Community Development Department 1951 River Road West Sacramento, California 95691 Contact: Ms. Beth Tinclier, Senior Planner (916) 373-5854

Prepared by:

Willdan Associates 2495 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 550 Sacramento, California 95833 Contact: Jeffrey M. Pemstein, Project Manager (916) 924-7000 I. INTRODUCTION . i - i

II. WRirrErc CoMr4rs AND RESPONSES . - 1

1. Office of Emergency Services, Yolo County, Fred Mills, Hazardous Materials Manager ...... II - 3 2. Floyd W. Fenocchio, 1200 L Street, Davis, California ...... 11 - 5 3. Yolo County Department of Public Health, Thomas Y. To ...... 11 - 6 4 U S Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale A Pierce, Acting Field Supervisor ...... II 7 5, Jim Harnish, Attorney for South River Partners,

1801 Hanover Dr. Davis, California ...... II - 10 6. Grace K. Ohlson, 1617 Park Blvd., West Sacramento, California ...... II - 14 7. Legal Services . of Northern California, David Jones, Attorney ...... II - 16 8. Washington...Unified....School.....District,.. Dav.idMil.ler,.. Superintendent ..... 11 - 21 9. City -of West Sacramento, Beth Tincher, Senior Planner 11 -22 10 Cahforma Department of Transportation, Jeff Pulvennan, Chief, Advance Transportation Development Branch ...... II 27 11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walter Yep, Chief, Planning Division ...... H - 32 12. RM1VI Environmental Planning for the Port of Sacramento, Rose Marie Moore, Principal ...... II - 33 13, Mike and Jude Lee, 3600 Seymour Avenue, West Sacramento, Califorma II 34 14. Gary and Shelly Fredericksen, 3650 Antioch Avenue, West Sacramento, California ...... II 35 15. Louis J. Arges, . Davis Road, West Sacramento, California ...... II 36 16 Louis J Arges, Davis Road West Sacramento, California II - 37 17. Property Owners, Davis Road, West Sacramento, California ...... II - 38

III. CHANGES, CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT Effi ...... III - 1

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan Final EIR INTRODUCTION

I. Introduction

Document Format

This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Southport Framework Plan Master Development Plan, which is incorporated by reference (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15150), will constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for this project. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of West Sacramento City Council must certify the FEIR as complete and adequate prior to final approval of the project.

This FEIR contains copies of all comment letters received during the public review period for the DEIR which began on March 11, 1994 (Notice of Completion filed with OPR on March 11, 1994). The Public Review Period was originally scheduled to end on April 25, 1994, but was extended to May 4, 1994 to allow an errata sheet to the Southport Framework Plan Draft EIR to be distributed. Individual responses have been provided for each comment received. An noticed public, hearing was held by the City of West .Sacramento .PlanningCommissionon April 7, 1994 to receive public comments on the Draft EIR. No comments were received at this hearing. The errata sheet, as well as the public hearing notice, are attached to this Final EIR as an appendix.

This Final EIR also contains a summary of all changes, corrections and additions made to the EIR text between the Draft and Final stages This summary of changes is an Important reference tool used to identify specific text modifications.

Effi Certification Process

Acceptance of the EIR for the Southport Framework Plan Master Development Plan will occur at a certification hearing before the West Sacramento City Council. The EIR must be cleared as adequate and certified by the City Council prior to any project approvals

Project Approval

After the EIR is certified and all information is presented, it will remain the City Council's decision to go forward with the preferred Project, select an alternative to the project, or choose another project which meets the objectives of the City and addresses public concerns. In compliance with CEQA, this decision may be made at the EIR Certification hearing or at a later date.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan I - 1 Final EIR INTRODUCTION

Relationship Between the Project and the EIR

The Project (also referred to as "preferred project") consists of the Southport Framework Plan document which is a policy document intended to serve as a refinement of the City's General Plan. The Southport Framework Plan includes zoning designations for land uses located within the project area, Design Guidelines and an Implementation Plan. As described in the Project Description contained in the Draft EIR, the Southport Framework Plan has been prepared to guide future development in the Project Area by identifying land uses, development policies and guidelines, and specify procedures and requirements.

The EIR, on the other hand, is a detailed informational document, prepared by Willdan Associates for the City of West Sacramento, which analyzes the project's significant environmental effects and identifies possible mitigation measures and reasonable alternatives.

According to the CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15002, the basic purposes of CEQA are to

o Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities;

Identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced;

o Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible; and

o Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.

These basic purposes are implemented, in part, with an EIR. This EIR has been prepared objectively by the City's consultant and independently reviewed by City staff for completeness and adequacy (CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15084(e).

This EIR is programmatic in nature due to the size of the Southport Framework Plan. It is anticipated that site specific environmental review will be required for individual development proposals.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 1-2 Final EIR

WRITTEN COMk' I KM 'WANDP]RESPONSES

The following section contains comment letters on the Draft EIR received during the public review period (March 11, 1994 - May 4, 1994), and written responses to those comments. Written responses immediately follow each comment letter. Although CEQA only requires that this document respond to those comments that are specific to the environmental issues contained within Draft EIR, every attempt has been made to respond to comments pertaining to the Project in general. Changes to Draft EIR text resulting from comments and responses are shown as additions and deletiefis. The comment letters are chronologically listed and organized by the date they were received.

LIST OF COMMENTATORS

1. Office of Emergency Services, Yolo County, Fred Mills, Hazardous Materials Manager 2. Floyd W. Fenocchino, 1200 L Street Davis

3. Yolo....County... Department of Public 1 Health, Thomas Y. To 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale A. Pierce 5 Jun Harnish, South River Partners, 1801 Hanover Dr, Davis 6. Grace K. Obison, 1617 Park Blvd., W. Sacramento 7. Legal Services of Northern California, David E. Jones 8. Washington Unified School 'District, David Miller 9. City of West Sacramento, Beth Tincher 10. California Department of Transportation, Jeff Pulverman 11. U.S. Army .Corps of Engineers, Walter Yep 12 RMM Environmental Planning on behalf of the Port of Sacramento, Rose Marie Moore 13. Mike and Jude Lee, 3600 Seymore Ave. West Sacramento 14. Gary and Shelly Fredericksen, 3650 Antioch Ave., West Sacramento 15. Louis Arges, Antioch Ave. and Davis Road, West Sacramento 16. Louis Arges, Antioch Ave. and Davis Road, West Sacramento 17. Property Owners, Davis Road, West Sacramento

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 2 Final EIR 3 (SJ f$) IEmERGENcy SERVICES

YALA, COUNTY V!.' EMERGENCY

35 N. COTTONWOOD, WOODLAND, CA 95695 TELEPHONE (916) 666-8930 FAX (916) 666.8909 DAN MCCANTA FRED MILLS OES COORDINATOR }iAZMAT PRO. MGR.

March 16, 1994 Beth Tincher, Senior Planner Community Development Department 1951 South River Rd. West Sacramento, CA 95691 Dear Ms Tincher, I have the following comments relating to the DEIR for the Southport Framework Plan. Chapter 4.5 pg 4.5-4 State Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95 is not referenced. This Chapter.re quires ..to sclose..ha.zard..ous materials, prepare emergency response plans, and . prepare a Risk Management and Prevention Program (RMPP) for acutely hazardous materials Businesses are required to provide this information to the Administering Agency. In Yolo County OES is the Administering Agency

Chapter 4.5 pg 4.56 3rd ¶ The Office of emergency Services also has the responsibility for business hazardous material inventory disclosure, approval of 1-2 emergency response plans, and Risk Management and Prevention Plans Chapter 4.5 pg 4.5-8 4th ¶ tJnocal has also submitted, to OES and has been accepted, a Risk 1 Management and Prevention Plan that addresses releases of acutely 1-3 the off-site consequences. hazardous materials and J Chapter 4,5 pg 4.5-10 Risk of Upset, 1st ¶ It is my understanding that McMillian Bloedel will handle Acutely 1 Hazardous Material in a gaseous state . a g., chlorine, Anhydrous 1-4 Ammonia, Sulfur Dioxide. These materials *are not handled in 55 gal drums and the consequence of a gaseous release could be significant,

Sincerely,

Fred Mills Hazardous Materials Manager WIUTrEN Cor\1MENTs AND RESPONSES

LETTER 1. Office of Emergency Services, Yolo County, Fred Mills, Hazardous Materials Manager March 16, 1994 r4D S) (IxSfIi' I I DIiBI

Comment Noted. The responsibility of the Yolo County Office of Emergency Services for the regulation of hazardous materials is discussed on pages 4. 5-5 and 4. 5-6 of the Draft EIR The discussion states that the Yolo County OES is responsible for the administration and enforcement of hazardous materials regulations including planning for emergencies, which includes the requirement for businesses to prepare a Risk Management and Prevention Plan for acutely hazardous materials.

Please see Response to Comment 1-1.

II am

Comment noted. The status of approved procedures .to handle hazardous materials on the Unocal site is discussed on page 4.5-8 of the Draft E!R, The following text amendment has been made to the Draft EIR to reference the Risk Management and Prevention Plan:

I$)lP1

Under California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Section 1, Chapter 6.95, businesses are mandated to prepare and summit a business emergency plan to each county's emergency services agency. Unocal prepared such a plan in 1988 and submitted a business Emergency Plan and a Risk Management and Prevention Plan for its facility in West Sacramento to the Yolo County Office of Emergency Services

Comment noted. The handling of hazardous materials for the development of the MacMillan Blodel Recycling Facility is discussed on page 4. 5-10 of the Draft EIR For clarification, the reference to the storage of hazardous materials in 55 gallon drums has been deleted as follows:

Page 4.5-10, Regulation and Presence of Hazardous Materials, third paragraph:

.If constructed as proposed, this project is anticipated to utilize hazardous materials, such as acids, bases, and organic liquids, in its operations. Such materials w414be4iafi4ed4in-5 gallon drums, which would reduce the potential for catastrophic releases, and would be

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan II - 3 Final EIR subject to regulations contained in an approved Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP)..... April 17, 1994

Stephen M. Patek, Director Community Development Department City of West Sacramento 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, CA 95691 Dear Mr. Patek: It has recently come to my attention that the city of West Sacramento Community Development Department has created a Southport Framework Plan which is currently under review. As a member of a long-time West Sacramento agricultural family with substantial property holdings within the sphere of the Southport Framework Plan, I am astounded at its comprehensive nature and the apparent lack of public notice and opportunity for public discussion which your agency has afforded the residents of the affected community regarding its planmng scope Surely, any kind of 2-1 planning document which incorporates 7,120 acres of residential, commercial, public, and agricultural property commands the systematic, careful, and diligent involvement of all of the residents which the plan affects. It is my preliminary observation that this plan possesses enormous environmental, social economic, and political implications for ...... citizens included in the Plan. Based on my preliminary review of the Plan, and considering the significant, potential derogatory affects this plan will have on the social, emotional, and economic well-being of the members of my family, I vehemently object to the contents of the Plan The Fenocchio family owns four parcels totaling approximately 75 acres of farm land within the designated area of the Southport Framework Plan Our preliminary analysis of the Plan suggests that the proposed use of this property would significantly limit future family benefit of the property, both from an agricultural standpoint and from a future development standpoint. Any condition which limits the potential optimization of economic, social, or environmental advantage to the 2-2 family will be strenuously opposed by the family. It is our belief that the fundamental nghts of the citizens of a proposed development area must be protected and that it is the responsibility of government to assure such protection. I wish to be apprised of proposed future actions as they relate to this development plan I look forward to discussing this matter with you, your department members, and/or the Planning Commission as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Sincerely,

rip Floyd W. Fenocchio 1200 L Street Davis, CA 95616 (756-2327) IYi 1Wi k SiSii IKI )1 *i S]1j

LETTER 2. Floyd W. Fenocchio, 1200 L Street, Davis, California April 17, 1994

4SJtb'il31 3I

The preparation of the Southport Framework Plan and the associated environmental process for the project has involved extensive public participation over the last several years. At the onset of the project, the City held a week-long design session to select a design firm to work on the Southport project and to create an initial design for the project Individuals from the project area, key leaders of the community and special interest groups were invited to provide input prior to project design. Upon the selection of a firm, the City held several public meetings to receive input on various aspects of the plan including, but not limited to the design of the plan and/or revised plan, design directives, environmental concerns, design guidelines, implementation plan, and street standards. Six of these public forums were held in 1992. In addition, the Planning Commission and the City Council have, at subsequent meetings considered portions of the plan including Street Design Standards, Swainson's hawk mitigation, and land use plan endorsement All of these meetings have been noticed in the Newsiedger (local newspaper), and a mass mailing was sent out for the first public forum Correspondingly, the Framework Plan has been prepared to provide a coordinated planning effort, and the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the Framework Plan at several public hearings All public notifications have been satisfied according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, including a Notice of Availability published in the West Sacramento News-Ledger and an advertised Planning Commission Hearing held on April 7, 1994 to receive public comments. Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR summarizes the extensive planning efforts which have been undertaken during the preparation of the Southport Framework Plan which included a number of opportunities for public involvement and comment prior to the Draft EIR preparation.

R4 i

The Draft EIR describes the existing land uses located in the project area and the potential environmental impacts which could occur with the proposed land uses contained in the Southport Framework Plan including the conversion of agricultural uses to urban uses. As discussed on page 4.1-36 of the Draft EIR, an objective of the Southport Framework Plan is to provide a comprehensive approach to planning for the development of individual properties consistent with the intent of the City's General Plan.

As summarized on page 4.1-25 of the Draft EIR, the implementation of the Framework Plan will include the future approval of tentative parcel and subdivision maps, final maps, and development agreements which will be prepared and submitted for individual project sites by the WRITFEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

property owners or authorized representatives. These site-specific proposals will be evaluated by the City for conformance with the General Plan, the adopted Framework Plan, and other City Ordinances and regulations, taking into consideration the Applicant's objectives and the specific conditions occurring on the project site.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11-6 Final EIR Eavfronmental Health has evaluated/reviewed the above referenced project proposal and would like to comment as follows:

Please see reverse sides tor-MOM-M-M-07MMM 9-, MP MMMFOIT

a Approval of Proi =t-

Ej Approval______

I ThJs project requires no further review or evaluation by Enviro=entzl Health.

Our office El has El has not previously reviewed anappkation on any portion

PROIECT EVALUATED BY: Thoma q. Y ~ Tt g Dae:r±1

Environmental He a lth Contact Per son: Paul Fitzrnaurice WRiTTENSA' b!I RESPONSESR

LETTER 3. Yolo County Department of Public Health, Thomas Y. To April 18, 1994

The Draft EIR on page 4.13-11 notes that some existing residential properties are currently served by individual septic systems. Section 4.13 describes in detail the provision of public services for the development projected to occur with the implementation of the Southport Framework Plan Public service requirements are assumed to include the provision of municipal water and sewer service to all development anticipated to occur with full buildout of the project area. The City has adopted Water and Sewerage Master Plans which specify facilities required to accommodate future development. The Draft EIR in Section 4.13, Public Services, addresses the impacts resulting from project implementation on existing and proposed public facilities MWOM

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Sacramento Field Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1803 Sacramento, California 95825-1846 In Reply Refer To: PPN 1076 April 21, 1994

Ms. Beth Tincher West Sacramento Community Develop.iient Department 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, California 95691

Subject: Southport Framework Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, West Sacramento Community Development Department, Sacramento River and Deep-Water Ship Channel, Yolo County, California

Dear Ms. Tincher:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the proposed Southport Framework Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the City of West Sacramento, Yolo County, California. The following comments are intended to assist with your development of a Final Environmental Impact Report. They are not intended to take the place of any formal comments which may be required at a later date under the auspices of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act or Endangered Species Act,

The City of West Sacramento (City) is preparing the Southport Framework Plan for a 7,120-acre area between the Sacramento Deep-Water Ship Channel on the west and north and the Sacramento River on the east. The City plans to facilitate the conversion of existing open space uses (e.g., agricultural, ruderal, and natural habitat) to residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational uses. The Framework Plan area would include 4,245 acres of residential uses, 412 acres of commercial development, 668 acres of industrial uses, 507 acres of open space, and 1,288 acres of other public uses.

Natural Resources

Irrigation and drainage ditches pervade the project area. Consequently, aquatic and riparian vegetation are present. Based on an April 14, 1994 site visit, ditches in the area contain stands of emergent plants including bulrush and cattails. Floating aquatic plants such as water fern (Azolla sp.) were also present. Drainage ditches, particularly those along the Yolo Shortline Railroad, support dense and continuous areas of riparian vegetation including large cottonwood trees, willows, non-native trees, and blackberry bushes. The outboard and inboard levees along the Sacramento River in the area support plant species characteristic of riparian areas, Riparian areas along the Sacramento River and associated channels provide foraging habitat, cover, and nesting locations for a variety of herpetofauna, migratory birds, and small mammals. The overhanging vegetation and instream woody materials are key attributes of a unique habitat type termed Shaded Riverine Aquatic (SRA) Cover by the Service. This habitat type is defined as the aquatic area occurring along the edge of a stream or a river where the adjacent bank is composed of natural materials and supports riparian vegetation which overhangs or protrudes into the water (DeHaven, 1989). Overhanging materials and downed woody debris provide variable habitat types, shade, and food items for instream biota. The benefits of SPA Cover to fish and other aquatic and semi-aquatic animals are well documented (USFWS, 1992). Under the Service's national Mitigation Policy (Federal Register, January 23, 1981), SPA Cover has been designated as Resource Category 1; a category which applies to habitat types which are of high value to fish and wildlife, and are determined to be unique and irreplaceable. This designation includes areas along the Sacramento River and associated channels within the Southport Plan area.

Special-Status Species

Federally listed species such as the giant garter snake and valley elderberry longhorn beetle are fully protected under the mandates of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The drainage and irrigation ditches may contain suitable habitat for the giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), listed as a threated species by the State and Federal governments, The threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) may occur in the area in association with elderberry plants. In addition, the winter-run chinook salmon (Qncorhynchus tshawytscha) is endangered and actions that alter SPA Cover or otherwise alter nearshore areas could affect this species, The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) also 41 has been recently petitioned to list coho salmon and steelhead as either endangered or threatened under the Act. The NMFS should be contacted to determine whether project activities would adversely affect winter-run chinook salmon and petitioned species.

Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the "take" of a federally listed fish and wildlife species. Take is defined by the Act "to harass, harm, pursue hunt, shoot, wound, kill trap capture, or collect" any such wildlife species. Take may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or shelter (50 CFR 17.3).

Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of two procedures If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding, or carrying out of this project, initiation of formal consultation is required between that agency and the Service pursuant to section 7 of the Act if it is determined that the proposed project may affect a federally listed species. Federal agencies must confer if they determine that the continued existence of a proposed species may be jeopardized by the project. Such consultation or conference could result in a biological opinion that addresses anticipated effects of the project to listed and proposed species. The biological opinion may authorize a limited level of incidental take for federally listed species. If a Federal agency is not involved with the project, and federally listed species may be taken as part of the project, then an "incidental take" permit pursuant to section 10(a) of the Act should be obtained. The Service may issue such a permit upon completion by the permit applicant of a satisfactory conservation plan for the listed species that may be affected by the project.

The larvae of the threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle feed and mature within the elderberry shrub. Use of the plants by the early stages of the animal, a wood borer, is very rarely apparent. Frequently, the only exterior evidence of use of the shrub by the beetle is the exit hole created by the larvae prior to the pupal stage. The beetle has been found in plants with trunks possessing a diameter of one inch or greater. Because the threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle may occur in the project area, the Service 12 recommends that the proposed project site be surveyed by a qualified entomologist for this federally protected animal and its elderberry foodplant. The report should include the precise location of all elderberry shrubs, their height and diameter, the presence of adult exit holes and the general condition of the plants. A map should also be included with the report indicating the major vegetational communities present on site. J Similarly, appropriately timed and conducted surveys for other listed, proposed or candidate species (including plants) that may be present should be performed throughout the entire Southport planning area. We recommend that such surveys also include general biotic surveys to describe overall habitat conditions and acreage throughout the planning area. Such comprehensive surveys would identify locations of key resources and facilitate effective regional, rather than piecemeal, conservation efforts.

Should these surveys determine that listed, proposed, and candidate species may be affected by implementation of the Southport plan, the Service I recommends that the City, in consultation with this office and the California Department of Fish and Game, develop a plan that mitigates for the direct and indirect impacts to these species and compensates for project-related loss of habitat. The mitigation plan also should be included in the environmental impact report.

The J DEIR notes that the City is cooperating with the California Department of Fish and Game, Yolo County, and other cities to establish a program for habitat management and conservation of State threatened and endangered species, particularly the State threatened Swainson's hawk, Approval of such a plan is not anticipated for several years. Please keep our office informed I regarding agreements on the mitigation for loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat. Such a plan may require modification should any federally listed species be found in areas proposed for development. J

Specific Comments

Water Quality

Non-point sources of pollution, such as agricultural drainage and stormwater runoff, accounted for approximately 65 percent of the stream miles deemed "impaired" within the United States (Thompson 1989). Urban and agricultural runoff increase nutrient levels in aquatic systems far above natural levels. This promotes eutrophication, the excessive growth and decay of algae. Additionally, runoff often contains pollutants that can be toxic to humans and aquatic organisms. Heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, petroleum products, and other chemical compounds routinely enter waterways and lakes. Parking lots have been identified as one of the major contributors of petroleum 4-5 products into aquatic systems. Chromatography of oil and grease in Bay Area runoff indicated that automobile oil drippings and exhaust were important sources of petroleum hydrocarbons (Silverman et al. 1985). We concur with the DEIR's finding that implementation of the proposed Southport plan would have a significant, cumulative impact to regional surface water quality (Page 4.4- 10).

Maintaining and improving water quality requires public education and appropriate methods to limit stormwater quantity and to improve stormwater quality, before it enters a waterway. One public interest group, the Urban Creeks Council, has stenciled wording on storm sewer structures to alert residents that the storm sewer system connects to a functional stream.

In addition to public education, structural designs and management practices are needed to reduce the negative impacts of stormwater discharge. Routine maintenance efforts such as street sweeping can reduce the amount of pollutants that reach the waterway. Properly designed facilities also can reduce the discharge of stormwater pollutants. Detention basins promote the settling of metals that adhere to fine particulate materials, thereby reducing the amount of toxic metals discharged into the receiving body of water. Grass-lined swales or other recharge basins allow for the infiltration of stormwater, again reducing the amount of polluted stormwater reaching the waterways. Natural biological processes In the soils often can breakdown toxic materials, particularly organic compounds.

As noted in Mitigation Measure 4,4-4, stormwater improvements can be natural amenities, The City of Davis has developed a stormwater detention basin that provides functional values for waterfowl during winter months. Silverman and Meiorin (1990) describe the design of a stormwater detention basin in Fremont, 46 California that also functions as a freshwater seasonal wetland. Similar design concepts also could be used in Southport. However, existing wetlands should not be utilized for stormwater detention basins.

A comprehensive approach is needed to resolve future degradation of water quality. The DEIR emphasizes that individual developments would be responsible for analyzing adverse off-site drainage impacts and mitigation 4..7 measures (pages 4,4-12+). Such piecemeal actions tend to reduce the overall significance of potential long-term development impacts. We recommend that the City develop a comprehensive stormwater plan for the Southport area,

Flood Control

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is currently preparing a supplemental environmental impact statement for their Sacramento River Bank Protection Project. It is our understanding that the Corps is considering alternatives to traditional flood control and bank protection practices. Setback levees, 48 which are levees placed further away from the active channel, would allow the Sacramento River to operate under a more natural regime, possibly allowing for the development of a more natural floodplain and associated vegetational communities. Such areas would provide a multitude of benefits. For example, the flood-prone area along the American River in the greater Sacramento area provides recreational opportunities as well as wildlife values and flood control benefits.

The proposed residential and commercial land uses along the base of the South River Road levee would foreclose opportunities by the Corps to develop setback levees in this area. In addition, the presence of homes and other structures near the levees would indirectly impact outboard and inboard habitats by requiring additional levee reconstruction and maintenance. Such actions may reduce already scarce SRA Cover. Therefore, we strongly urge the City to reconsider the commercial and residential land-use designations along the Sacramento River in the Northeast, Southeast and Southwest quadrants.

The DEIR identifies 50 acres in the Northeast Quadrant, along the Sacramento River, for designation as Riverfront mixed-uses. Facilities along the Sacramento River have fragmented the riparian corridor through the removal of riparian vegetation, altered the channel hydraulics, and reduced overall 1 habitat values for fish and wildlife through habitat degradation. Therefore, we recommend that the City discourage any new commercial, residential, and active recreational (e.g., marina) developments along the Sacramento River. -j Summary

The proposed project would result in significant loss of open space, particularly agricultural lands that provide habitat for small mammals, birds, and raptors such as the Swainson's hawk. In addition, development proposals may affect habitat for the federally listed valley elderberry longhorn beetle, giant garter snake, and winter-run chinook salmon. Comprehensive surveys to denote the presence of these species and habitat conditions are required. Residential and commercial developments adjacent to existing levees should be strongly discouraged. In addition, new urban developments near the levee would preclude the possible construction of setback levees in the Southport area. We strongly urge the City to consider maintaining these areas as either agricultural, open space/conservation, or other non-intrusive land uses,

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Darren Fong at (916) 978-5408 (Ext. 348) regarding general wetland issues and Pete Sorenson at (916) 978-4866 regarding endangered species issues.

Sincerely,

A'~' -

Dale A. Pierce Acting Field Supervisor cc: Reg. Dir., (ARD-ES), FWS, Portland, OR COE, Sacramento District (T. Coe) EPA, San Francisco (P. Jones) NMFS, Santa Rosa (C. Mobley) CDFG, Reg. II, Rancho Cordova (Env. Services) Sacramento River Preservation Trust, 909 12th St., #207, Sacramento, CA 95814

Literature Cited:

DeHaven, R.W. 1989. Value, scarcity, uniqueness, and replaceability of shaded riverine aquatic cover of selected reaches of the Sacramento River system, Sacramento Valley, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region One. 11 p.

Ferguson, B.K. March/April 1991. Taking advantage of stormwater control basins in urban landscapes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation.

Silverman, G.S., M.K. Stenstrom, and S. Fam. 1985. Evaluation of hydrocarbons in runoff to San Francisco Bay, Association of Bay Area Governments.

Silverman, G.S. and E. Chan Meiorin. 1990. Seasonal freshwater wetland development in south San Francisco Bay. Pages 247-257. In: J.J. Berger (ed.), Environmental restoration: science and strategies for restoring the earth. Island Press.

Thompson, P. 1989. Poison runoff: a guide to state and local control of non- point source water pollution. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Shaded riverine aquatic cover of the Sacramento River system: classification as resource category 1 under the FWS mitigation policy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service- Sacramento Field Office, 21 p. LETTER 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dale A. Pierce, Acting Field Supervisor April 21, 1994 hi k

Comment noted. Refer to page 4.9-7 through 15 of the Draft EIR for information regarding special-status taxa known or suspected to occur within the planning area, including the potential for occurrence of giant garter snake and valley elderberry longhorn beetle. As noted on page 4.9-6 of the Draft EIR, the river system supports resident and migrant fish species, including the chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). The winter-run chinook salmon is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act The Sacramento River system supports populations of both anadromous and resident fish species Resident fishes include game fish, such as largemouth bass, catfish, and sunfish, as well as many species of nongame and forage fish. Anadromous species include chinook salmon, steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneriz), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus), and the American shad (Alosa sapidissima) The adult salmon has three distinct migrations from the Pacific Ocean into the San Francisco Bay-Delta area, during the fall (largest run), winter, and spring (smallest run) Migration of juvenile salmon to the ocean usually peaks in April, May, and June American shad begm migration in fall and pass through the Delta during April, May, and June, with juvenile shad migrating from the Delta through San Pablo Bay from September to November. Sturgeon tend to spawn between March and June, although a small portion of the population may migrate to the Delta prior to the major spawning run Steelhead trout migrate all year, with the bulk of spawning fish moving upstream in the fall and winter.

While most of the anticipated development in the Southport Planning Area would have little or no direct impact on the Sacramento River and habitat for salmon and other anadromous species of concern, any waterfront construction could adversely affect aquatic habitat and fishery resources, as identified on page 4.9-21 of the Draft EIR. Mitigation Measure 4.9-6 on page 4.9- 28 of the Draft EIR recommends further evaluation as part of the environmental review of specific development proposals along the Sacramento River, the Deep Water Ship Channel, and Barge Canal, and as necessary, would require appropriate measures to prevent adverse impacts on aquatic and fishery resources.

Comment noted. A general survey locating elderberry shrubs within the planing area was conducted during the field reconnaissance in June of 1991. Clumps and isolated shrubs of elderberry were mapped and are indicated in Figure 4.9-1 on page 4.9-3 of the Draft EIR. Measure M.M. 4-9-9 on page 4.9-30 of the Draft EJR addresses preservation of elderberry

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 8 Final EIR plants within the Southport area, and requires consultation with and approval of any mitigation plan with the USFWS.

Comment noted. As previously described, this is a program level EIR which addresses a Master Plan for the Southport area. No direct development will result from the adoption of the plan. Subsequent development will require project-level environmental assessment.

Measures C.P. 4-9-1, C.P. 4-9-2, M.M. 4-9-8, M.M. 4-9-9, M.M 4-9-10, and M.M. 4-9-11 of the Draft EIR would require supplemental surveys to confirm the presence or absence of special-status taxa prior to approval of specific projects. Mitigation plans would be required for specific projects on a case-by-case basis, according to the results of the detailed surveys.

Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment 5-1, Measure M.M. 4-9-7 has been structured to provide several options to mitigate potential impacts on Swainson's hawk nesting territories within the planning area, including participation in the County-wide Habitat Management Plan if available or preparation of project-specific mitigation plan

The City realizes that the Regional HMP will not be completed within the next couple of years. In the meantime, the City is ensuring the protection of sensitive species by:

1. Identifying their existence and locations in the Southport Framework Plan EIR, and 2. Requiring site specific surveys prior to project approval.

The City appreciates the Fish and Wildlife's continued participation in the Regional HMP to further ensure that these concerns are met, however, it is not feasible for the City to survey the entire 7,120 acre Southport site.

Comment noted. USFWS concurs with Impact 4-4-5 which states that the project will result in a cumulative impact to surface water quality. This impact is mitigated by MM 4.4.2, 4.4.3, and 4.4.4 on page 4.4-13 of the Draft EIR.

Comment noted. The Southport Framework Plan Design Guidelines contain canal cross sections which combine stormwater drainage/detention, wildlife habitat/mitigation, and recreational uses.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 9 Final EIR WRIrFEN CoMMIrcrs AND RESPONSES

Measures M.M. 4-9-12 and M.M. 4-9-13 were recommended to minimize adverse impacts to wetland resources, provide for revegetation with emergent and woody plant cover where disturbance is unavoidable (which is consistent with the criteria of the Southport Design Guidelines that address existing canal sections), and require coordination with jurisdictional agencies Mitigation Measure 4.4-4 pertains to new storm water facilities and does not suggest that existing wetlands be used for stormwater detention basins.

The City has hired Borcalli and Associates to prepare a City-wide Drainage Master Plan, including water quality mitigation measures. While there is no set date for the completion of this document, storm drainage measures will be required to be in place prior to the construction of new development resulting from the approval of the Master Plan. In an effort to address the storm drainage issue, the design guidelines include drainage cross sections. These cross sections will be reviewed by Borcalli and Associates and modified if necessary to address ultimate storm drainage needs.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4-8

Comment noted. The City has been working with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding improvement .to the West Sacramento levee system. The method of strengthening the levees is through widening the levees. The Corps has not approached the City with any proposal to develop setback levees. The City will continue to coordinate with the Corps regarding Flood Control letters.

The City received a letter from the Corps dated May 12, 1994. The comment letter does not mention any concerns related to setback levees nor does it mention the intent to propose secondary setback levees,

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4-9

Comment noted. The only RMU (Riverfront Mixed-Use) designations proposed within the Southport Framework Plan along the Sacramento River are existing marinas, including the Sacramento Yacht Club, Sherwood Marina, and Four Seasons Marina.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan II - 10 Final EIR JIM HARNISH Attorney 1801 Hanover Drive, Suite C Davis, California 95616 (916) 753-0277 fax (916) 753-5318

Beth Tincher, Senior Planner Community Development Department 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, California 95691 Tafronvir-MENTOON M,

Dear Ms. Tincher,

I have reviewed the Draft EIR for the Southport Framework Plan and have several comments for your consideration which I am submitting on behalf of the South River Partners.

Let me preface my comments by noting that the limited-term management authorization of the Yolo County Habitat Management Program appears to provide for the mitigation of impacts to wildlife resulting from the implementation of the Southport Framework Plan. The, management authorization provides fo.r a mitigation program similar to that suggested in the DEIR. This approach to mitigating potential impacts to the Swainson's hawk, as well as other species, is clearly superior to the Alternatives described in the DEIR (see comments below). With implementation of this mitigation program, the DEIR concludes that potential significant impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level while attaining the objectives of the project. Furthermore, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has agreed I to accept the provisions of the limited-term management authorization.

Based on the analysis and conclusions contained in the DE1R, as well as the commitment to the management authorization mitigation program, it would appear that selection of the proposed project, namely the Framework Plan, over any of the alternatives would result in the long term mitigation of potential Swainson's hawk impacts The following comments are provided with this mitigation in mind

The discussion of potential impacts to Swainson's hawk nesting and foraging habitat is not complete. There is no distinction made between potential and actual foraging 1 52 habitat. If there is no historical evidence of foraging by Swainson's hawks on a given property, does the DEIR consider the loss of such land as a significant impact? If so, upon what facts is such a conclusion based? If not, the DEIR must clarify the basis for determining significant impacts as it relates to Swainson's hawk foraging habitat.

The DEIR correctly points out in the footnote on page 4.9-23 that the CDFG interpretation that loss of Swainson's hawk foraging habitat is a "take" under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) lacks statutory and case law authority. This point is important to emphasize, particularly in clarifying the role and authority of the City of West Sacramento as lead agency for the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is distinctly separate from the CESA, which is administered by CDFG. As lead agency, the City may address potential environmental impacts in any manner it determines to be appropriate, consistent with the law. As such, the City can determine what specific actions or events constitute a significant impact, assuming there is evidence in the record to support such determinations.

The CESA, on the other hand, includes specific language related to the designation and protection of threatened and endangered species from which there is limited interpretative latitude. The provisions of the CESA are specific to the possession or harming of the protected species. There is no provision in the CESA which suggests that the loss of potential foraging habitat falls within the definition of a "take" This interpretation by CDFG is nothing more than an underground regulation which has not been subjected to proper public review and comment. The administration of the CESA by CDFG should not be confused with the City's authority as lead agency. under CEQA, which is a distinctly separate matter The take issue under the CESA should more appropriately be one that is discussed by the CDFG with individual property owners whose land might be effected. 53

The DEIR should be revised to clarify the fact that the take issue, regardless of CDFG's interpretation of its application to foraging habitat, is not directly relevant to a CEQA analysis. Any question of a "take" potentially resulting from development approved under the framework Plan will be addressed between CDFG and individual property owners. Limitations imposed by CDFG will occur under the authority of the CESA, not CEQA. The obligations of the City as lead agency under CEQA do not extend to predetermining whether a "take" will occur or whether the "take" is acceptable. The CESA permits the taking of endangered species if the CDFG determines that such action is appropriate under given circumstances. While there may be some overlap between the CEQA analysis contained in an EIR and administration of the CESA by CDFG, it is important for the DEIR to distinguish the limitations of the CEQA process. The City has neither the authority nor the responsibility to determine whether a "take" will occur, whether the take is acceptable and what mitigation is appropriate. The selection of Alternatives B and C is driven largely by a concern about the impacts 1 to Swainson's hawk nesting and foraging habitat. Each alternative is described in 54 terms of the number of Swainson's hawk nests to be preserved. Given the apparent

2 objective of these alternatives, the selection on the Southeast Village for elimination under Alternative B is unsubstantiated by the facts.

The 1993 study conducted by Michael Brandeman and Associates (MBA), which is referenced in the DEIR, provides some indication of Swainson's hawk nesting and foraging activities in the Southport area. The DEIR relies, in part, on this study for background data in determining biotic impacts. A review of that study reveals that the majority of Swainson's hawk nesting and foraging activities in the Southport area occurs within the Northeast Village (see Exhibit 11). Quite clearly, if Alternative B has been designed to maximize Swainson's hawk impact mitigation while preserving three nests, the logical village to consider for elimination is the Northeast village where Swainson's hawk activities are much more concentrated. The elimination of the Southeast Village would appear to generate far less potential for mitigation, given the limited use of the area by Swainson's hawks. 5-5

It is also apparent that the DEIR has failed to distinguish between potential and actual foraging habitat. While the physical characteristics throughout the Northeast and Southeast Villages are generally similar, the evidence in the record reveals substantially more foraging activity in the north. The concentration of nesting sites is in the Northeast Villagé The fact that studies reveal limited Swainson's hawk activities in the Southeast Village area may indicate that the area is less valuable as foraging habitat. While there are a number of questions raised below about the effectiveness of either Alternative B or C to mitigate impacts to the Swainson's hawk, if a three nest alternative is to be seriously considered, it should maximize mitigation potential. The clear choice for such an alternative is the Northeast Village, not the Southeast Village.

In addition to the comments above regarding the inappropriateness of the land area selected for Alternative B, several comments about both alternatives are necessary.

An underlying assumption for Alternatives B and C is that land withheld from development will continue to be farmed, thereby providing foraging habitat for the Swainson's hawk, While the DEIR, at section 4.2, provides some analysis of the current agricultural activities in the Plan area, the document does not address the viability of continued agricultural production in Southport. In addition to the traditional 5-6 conflicts between agricultural and urban uses, such as dust, noise, odors, pesticide and herbicide use, aerial spraying and truck and farm machinery use of public roads, the Southport agricultural community experiences an increasing fragmentation of available agricultural land, The DER provides no analysis of the feasibility of isolating either 960 or 1,920 acres surrounded by urban development for long term agricultural production.

Another important point mentioned but not emphasized in the DEIR is the lack of analysis of the implications of Alternatives B and C to the financing of infrastructure essential any development in Southport. Costs for bridges, roads, sewer, water, schools and other improvements are expected to be allocated to land approved for development. If the Southeast and/or the Northeast Villages are eliminated from development in order to preserve foraging habitat for the Swainson's hawk, it is not at all clear that the remaining land will be capable of supporting the necessary infrastructure costs. If either alternative is to be seriously considered, the City Council must fully understand the financing implications of such actions to the Southport Plan area.

The DEIR, in analyzing the effects of the alternatives, must consider the effects of development occurring elsewhere in the region which would, under the Framework Plan, occur in the Southport area. Again, these impacts are alluded to but not analyzed in the discussion of alternative sites (pages 5-8 to 5-10). The Southport area has been planned for many years to accommodate urban growth in the Sacramento region. Its close proximity to the major employment centers of downtown Sacramento and the West Sacramento Port industrial area make it ideal to 58 accommodate such growth. Reducing or eliminating the potential for the area to accommodate this growth will not occur in a vacuum. That population and job growth will occur elsewhere if not Southport. The likely alternative growth areas in the region, such as North NtOms, Elk Grove, Laguna, and South Placer County, will generate a wide range of potential environmental impacts, particularly if projected growth in Southport is limited. The DEIR fails to adequately address these potential impacts in anything other than a superficial manner. If the three or six nest alternatives are to be considered seriously, the analysis of the impacts of shifting that development to other areas must be provided.

The DEIR makes it clear the neither Alternatives B or C will assure the potential significant impacts to the Swainson's hawk would be reduced to a less than significant level. Given the fact that extensive urban development would occur nearby, the preserve areas, particularly under the three nest alternative, may very well be inadequate to support any significant Swainson's hawk population in the, area. A far more sensible, long term approach to the preservation and support of Swainson's hawks and other important wildlife in the County is found in the YoIo County Habitat 5-9 Management Plan effort. The results of this Plan will be to set aside permanent areas for wildlife preservation which will be isolated from urban development. The reservation of limited preserves within developing urban areas is shortsighted and not likely to result in long term benefits to wildlife. Furthermore, in order to create this questionable mitigation scheme, the Framework Plan objectives may very well be compromised to the point where the Plan implementation is economically infeasible.

A essential aspect of the consideration of the alternatives is the additional costs associated with setting aside a portion of the Southport area for open space as mitigation which benefits the land to be developed. While the reservation of open space for Swainson's hawk mitigation is characterized as Alternatives B and C, the

4 net effect will be to limit development on some property to facilitate the development of property in the Plan area. If either the three or six nest alternative is selected, the costs of such mitigation must be borne by the remaining properties. This cost of mitigation, along with the costs of the other required mitigation measures, may further 5-10 add to the infeasibility of the alternatives. It is not reasonable to assume that the property owners whose land is arbitrarily included with a preserve area without regard to actual use or presence of the Swainson's hawk or other protected species, will bear the full cost of this mitigation effort, particularly if the property owners are already participating in a benefit assessment district.

Many of the lands which would be permitted to develop as a result of the implementation of the alternatives are also considered actual or potential foraging habitat. The benefits which would accrue to those properties must be considered as a cost of development similar to other mitigation costs. The DEIR fails to provide any 5-11 analysis of the feasibility of the alternatives in terms of cost to the remaining land, The DEIR must be clear on the point that funding for the alternative preserve areas, should either be selected, will be borne by the remaining property in the Plan area.

The South River Partners strongly urge the Planning Commission and City Council to approve the Southport Framework Plan as proposed The alternatives should be rejected as infeasible and inconsistent with the project objectives. The DEIR clearly indicates that the mitigation measures recommended for the Plan regarding Swainson's hawk impacts will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level The limited-term management authorization of the Yolo County Habitat Management 5-12 Program is consistent with and provides a vehicle for implementation of the recommended mitigation measures Only the No Project alternative will achieve similar results, but this alternative is inconsistent with the project objectives. Neither Alternative B nor C will result in reducing Swainson's hawk impacts to a less than significant level, however, both are inconsistent with the project objectives and will likely make it impossible to finance the necessary mitigation and infrastructure costs of the project.

Thank ' or the opportunity to comment on this important document.

Coti an

)South River Partners WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

LETTER 5. Jim Harnish, Attorney for South River Partners, 1801 Hanover Dr. Davis, California April 25, 1994 fti X1J : IiJi' k' I

Comment noted. As discussed on page 4.9-23 of the Draft EIR, the County-wide Habitat Management Program is intended to provide for habitat management and conservation of "threatened" and "endangered" species Habitat preservation and enhancement would benefit other species of wildlife in the County, but is not the focus of the program. As concluded on page 4.9-21 of the Draft EIR, the conversion of several thousand acres of existing habitat to urban uses represents a substantial reduction in wildlife habitat, conflicting with the goals and policies of the Natural Resources section of the West Sacramento General Plan, and would be considered a significant unavoidable impact on wildlife resources under CEQA, even with implementation of the County-wide Habitat Management Program.

Implementation of the Southport Framework Plan as currently proposed does not provide for any foraging habitat preservation and would result in the loss of up to seven active Swainson's hawk nesting temtories Participation m the County-wide Habitat Management Program is identified in Measure M.M 4-9-7 on page 4.9-29 of the Draft EIR as one option for mitigating impacts on Swainson's hawk Compliance with an interim fee component of the program would require a fee contribution which would be assessed for all habitat lost within each participating development area This fee has been established by CDFG at $1,995 per acre, and will be collected under a blanket Management Authorization Agreement administered by Yolo County, CDFG, and the Cities of Davis, Winters, Woodland, and West Sacramento. The blanket Management Authorization Agreement was presented to and approved by the City of West Sacramento in April, 1994 Providing adequate mitigation for potential impacts on Swainson's hawk through payment of fees assumes that the Habitat Management Program will eventually be completed and can be successfully implemented.

Project-specific mitigation could include a combination of on- and off-site habitat preservation, with on-site protection particularly important in the immediate vicinity of known nesting locations Providing a coordinated approach to habitat preservation within the Southport area would serve to minimize fragmentation and ensure that any protected habitat is of greatest value to Swainson' s hawk. The alternatives discussed in the Draft EIR provide some initial direction on a coordinated approach to habitat preservation within the planning area.

As discussed on page 5-3 of the Draft EIR, there is also a possibility that portions of the Southport area will be identified as essential habitat in the County-wide program, which would be disruptive to the cohesiveness and feasibility of the Framework Plan as currently proposed.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan IT-li Final EIR ItA'I1 U.]kii

Incorporating on-site foraging habitat into a modified Framework Plan would at least partially mitigate potential impacts to Swainson's hawk and would provide an opportunity for the primary and secondary zones to become an integral part of the regional approach to habitat management while distributing the cost of land and easement acquisition over a larger pool of applicants.

L.iøu iX]lk' I

As noted on page 4.9-14 of the Draft EIR, the extent of suitable foraging habitat within the planning area varies from year to year as crop patterns change. Swainson's hawk are opportunistic feeders, foraging in different locations as prey densities change throughout the spring and summer months, or as prey become exposed through agricultural management practices such as flooding of alfalfa fields and harvesting of grain crops. Because foraging activity varies both seasonally and annually with changes in cover types and prey availability, there is substantial difficulty distinguishing between "potential and actual foraging habitat" Documenting foraging activity in any one year, as was done by Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) in their home range analysis in 1992, does not preclude use of other locations for foraging and even nesting by the hawks in future years..Because of this uncertainty, all suitable cover types are considered potential foraging habitat which would be eliminated if converted to urban development, and collectively under the evaluation of the overall impacts of the Framework Plan would result in a significant impact on Swainson's hawk, resulting in the loss of up to seven nesting territories in the planning area The significance of future development on a particular parcel would be dependent of a number of variables, including proximity to an active nest, historical cover patterns on the site, and surrounding uses As recommended in Measure M.M. 4-9-7, until a County-wide Habitat Management Program is established, an applicant would prepare a project-specific mitigation plan based on the habitat value of the project site. p i ij øt.ij i I 1]

Comment noted. As concluded on page 4.9-23 of the Draft EIR, implementation of the Southport Framework Plan would result in the loss of over 5,200 acres of suitable foraging habitat and nesting territories of up to seven breeding pairs of Swainson's hawk, resulting in a substantial reduction in critical habitat for a special-status taxa, which is considered a significant impact under CEQA regardless of whether the CDFG would consider such a loss as a "take" under the California Endangered Species Act. Mitigation Measures in the Draft EIR were recommended to mitigate the potentially significant impacts on Swainson's hawk and other biological resources within the planning area. Measure M.M. 4-9-7 on page 4.9-29 has been structured to provide for coordination and approval by the CDFG of any project-specific mitigation plan in recognition of the Department's responsibilities as a Trustee Agency and their obligation to enforce the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the State Fish and Game Code. Section 21002 of CEQA states that "public agencies should not approve

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 12 Final EIR WRrITEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects". Mitigation measure M.M 4-9-7 would ensure that any project-specific mitigation plan for impacts to Swainson's hawk is acceptable to the CDFG, by requiring coordination and completion of any agreement with the Department before any construction permit is issued or site improvements are initiated, fulfilling the City's obligation to provide adequate mitigation under CEQA.

A description and qualitative evaluation of the two alternatives to the Framework Plan as currently proposed is provided in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR. The primary and secondary habitat zones identified in Alternatives B, which eliminate the Southeast Village, are located in direct relationship to nest locations 4, 5 and 6. In terms of habitat quantity and quality, it is this proximity to the nest sites which substantiates the location of the proposed habitat zones. These zones represent the necessary "core use" areas for Swainson's hawk, as identified by the MBA telemetry study.

The land use configuration of Alternative B is largely driven by the strategy to provide quality habitat to nesting Swainson's hawk. This alternative, however, also takes into consideration other land use factors While providing habitat value, Alternative .B also preserves the integrity of the village concept by consolidating development, and provides for the efficient and cost effective development of infrastructure by preserving this principle. All of these factors lend to substantiate the configuration of Alternative B, which includes the elimination of the Southeast Village.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 5-5

Comment noted, Refer to Response to Comments 5-2 and 5-4. The MBA study in 1992 provided only limited information on home range activity of five individual hawks from four of the six active nesting territories within or immediately east of the planning area. The propensity of observed foraging events in the northeast portion of the planning area is a direct indication of the number of birds with active nests which were trapped and marked with radio transmitters Four of the five birds (including one pair) nested in the northeastern portion of the planning area, with the fifth bird nesting near Lake Washington None of the birds in the three southern nest locations (including the active nest Just outside the planning area along Shangri La Slough) were marked with radio transmitters or monitored for foraging activity during the MBA study.

As noted by the comment, impacts associated with urban/agricultural land use interface such as odors, noise, dust, insects, and the application of pesticides are discussed on page 4.2-14 of the

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan II - 13 Final EIR IYAi ti VrEN CommENTsWP

Draft EIR and determined to be a significant impact. The Draft EIR also states that the proposed urban uses may result in restricting future agricultural operations in the area. The focus of Alternatives B and C in the Draft EIR is the preservation of foraging habitat for Swainson hawk, and associated nesting territory.

As the DEIR indicates, several mitigation options are available and are required to be identified prior to the development of any project within the Southport planning area. Until a mitigation plan is identified at the project-specific level, the evaluation of the viability of agricultural operations is premature.

I'i iis1

Comment noted. An analysis of the financial impacts of the Project or project alternatives is not a CEQA requirement for an EIR if significant environmental impacts are not anticipated to result from such a financing program. CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15131 specifically states that economic or social effects "shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment".

Although financial analysis is not required, it is recognized that a fiscal component will be critical m order to implement the project or a project alternative Vail Associates is currently preparing an Infrastructure Implementation and Phasing Plan, which will evaluate the financial feasibility of Alternative B toward providing adequate infrastructure from the revenue generated by this alternative. Please see also Response to Comment 7-3.

In accordance with CEQA requirements, the Draft EIR contains a comparative analysis of the No Project Alternative (A). Under this alternative, only those projects which are already approved would be allowed to proceed. The .Draft EIR discusses the implications of not developing the project area under the proposed Framework Plan including affects on land use, population, housing, and employment. Further, on page 5-8 of the Draft EIR, alternative site locations are discussed which includes a comparison of impacts. As provided for in Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, the impact discussion for the alternatives need not be to the same level of detail as for the project as proposed.

Comment noted. Refer to the response to Comments 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3. As discussed in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR and noted previously, the alternatives discussed in the Draft EIR provide some initial direction on a coordinated approach to habitat preservation within the planning area, both of which would be superior biologically to the complete loss of habitat which would occur with implementation of the Framework Plan as currently proposed.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan II - 14 Final EIR WRrITEN CoMMENTS AND RESPONSES

The Regional Habitat Management Plan is one option outlined as mitigation within the DEIR, although other mitigation may be feasible until the HMP is in place. Such mitigation includes individual project-level mitigation plans, or coordinated efforts to work with the City in preparation of the county-wide plan (DEIR page 4.9-29).

*j uxSr. iii 1C

Comment noted. The comment concerns the cost to property owners for mitigation proposed in the Draft EIR and, in particular, the question of cost/benefit equity to the various individual property owners who might be affected by the implementation of Alternatives B and C. Although CEQA requires that the proposed mitigation and alternatives be reasonable, detailed cost analyses are generally not considered in EIRs. However, the financial impact to individual property owners affected by the project may be considered by the City during final action on the project.

RiESPONSE TO CommiENT 5-11

Comment noted. CEQA does not require the review of fiscal impacts of a project within an EIR. Please see Response to Comments 5-8 and 5-10.

Comment noted. Please see Response to Comments 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan II - 15 Final EIR Ms. Beth Tincher, Senior Planner West Sacramento Community Development Dept. West Sacramento, CA

Dear Beth Tincher3 Enclosed is comment on the ETh for the Southport Framework. The plans of our family to replace our Smith-Corona with a word processor are, like much of the development in W. acto on hold. The typos probably have an adverse impact which I hope is somewhat mitigated. I hope that the overriding consideration that the input/eful in clarifying the issues will be considered in the final EIR0will make them less than vty significant.

Gract K. Ohison Comments Draft Environmental impact report for the "Southport Framework Plan" A master development plan prepared by Wildan ssociEtes, March, 1994.

The process used by Wildan & Associates and the Planning Department appear 'to be exemplary. The public policy issues mentioned on page 1-3 fully disclose the the reson for the City Council (which has had significant change in its makeup) approved) a project dispñite significaenvironmental impact. In sum , the document relies on the adopted General Plan (which narrowly missed being changed by a vote of the people) to find what will be over-riding reasons for approving the project despite environmental impacts (significant) that can't or will not be mitigated. There is some acknowledgment that some impacts on public services and facilities such as water supply, wastater treatment and solid waste disoosl as well as cumulative degredation of air quality in the region BUT there is no reexamination of the circumstances which could have lead the City to appqfve full development of the area in the City south of the barge canal with residential not ba G110 iso i.d. A- commercial and industrial uses which would now, if considered with potential in-fill north of the barge canal and a rational assignment of any new development in the region and air basin which would preserve the quality of life. The city policy decision makers can still consider the relation between potential development potential north of the barge canal as having a priority over the raw ag land south of the barge canal but needs to have a strong position in the regional planning efforts and before statepolicy makers that must e- ventually confront the patchwork of enronruental,Degredtion which is occuring as cities and counties compete for the "economic benefits of deve1opmentand land w6ners push to make their dreams of profit on speculative land investment come true. I Other documents will address the proposed mitigations for impacts such as needs for new public services and infx- structure and the economic feasiblity of development with fjar share costs paid by the new developments etc. It is understood that development with the proposed mitigations will be conditional on the feasibility of Implementation. The Design guidelines and development on a phased basis are exemplary IF Implementation is found in other studies to be feasible. The Swainson Hawk issue identifies solutions to the problem of this species survival which also are closely linked to the uniitigated development of prim,. AG land, The same needed foraging area, also isneeded for the viablity of people life in the Valley. A serious ommission is the 62 lack of study of the Staging area as the Swainsone gather to begin their journey to Argentenia. (One sad commentary on the study is that one landowner successfully cut down a hawk nest without any consequences. Another is that one of the hawks still has the radio aerial having flown to Argen ia and back). The final EIR should consider this. The final EIR should face sqaxy the fact that the prime AG lands to be lost have in 1994 no overriding necessity.

Attached& iViatrial on staging of Swainson hawk q -- Grace K. Ohison, 1617 Park Blvd. West Sacramento 95691 4/28/94 Addendums May 3, 1994

Reports from the State Director of Naural Resources that the snow pack has hit a record low, confirms the finding that the EIR must probe deeper into the unmitigated adverse impact of the development on the scarce water resources; the regional development appears to be developing apace without adequate consideration of need to limit development to scarce water resources in the inland valleys. 6-3 The General Plan did not take this into consideration (and could not have at that time perhaps) and the tentative approval of Mac/B paper recycling is ob- viously not practical IF there is going to be a need to have water uses that are consistent with the known limited supply gko WRrLTEN CoMMENTs AND RESPONSES

LETTER 6. Grace K. Ohlson, 1617 Park Blvd., West Sacramento, California April 28, 1994

XN.1 D$ I)ik'i I J1

The purpose of the Southport Framework Plan is intended to refine the adopted General Plan to provide for a comprehensive land use planning program for the area. The General Plan proposed development in the Southport area and does not identify which area of the City should be developed first The General Plan and zoning ordinance is based on performance, where if a project meets criteria (i.e. adequate services, setbacks, etc.) the project is allowed to proceed.

The very nature of the Southport Framework Plan is to create villages that are separated by greenbelts Development will be encouraged within the village areas, so that the plan presents a "patchwork' pattern.

The Plan includes a close examination of public service and infrastructure requirements for full build-out. The Conformance Principles contained in the Framework Plan, Draft Implementation Plan and highlighted in the Draft Effi, are intended to ensure that development anticipated to occur in conformance with the Plan will be provided with the public services and facilities necessary to accommodate such development. This EIR is not intended to reexamine the General Plan, but to evaluate the changes to the existing land use designations to determine the environmental impacts which might result

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 6-2

Comments noted. Swainson's hawk do utilize prime and well as non-prime agricultural lands as foraging areas. Regarding the staging area for Swainson's.hawk, studies conducted to date do not conclude that this species uses one particular area within Southport year after year. There is currently no evidence to demonstrate that development within the Southport area would affect the hawk's ability to gather prior to their annual migration

The Draft EIR examines the conversion of agricultural uses and lands to urban uses proposed by the Southport Framework Plan on an incremental as well as on a cumulative basis. The Draft EIR describes the existing agricultural industry occurring in the region and identifies the conversion of the agricultural lands in the project area to urban uses as a significant and unavoidable impact on a project specific basis and on a cumulative basis. However, as the Draft EIR notes on page 4.2-14, the project area has been designated for urban uses in the adopted General Plan and the conversion of the agricultural land uses to urban land uses was evaluated during the environmental review of the General Plan. The impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural land which will result from the changes to land use designations

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 16 Final EIR WR=N CommENTsWW1 Pt4D

proposed by the Southport Framework Plan are consistent with those determined for the existing General Plan land use designations. The purpose of this EIR is not to reexamine the General Plan, but to evaluate the changes to the existing land use designations to determine the environmental impacts which might result.

L4 JI

The Draft EIR examines the provision of water service to the project area and describes water supply on a City-wide basis. Section 4.13.1 summarizes the supply assumptions used for the preparation of the General Plan and the City's Water Master Plan The Draft EIR also notes that the Water Master Plan is being updated to reflect current land use designations and buildout assumptions, and will take into consideration the water supply needs associated with the implementation of the Framework Plan.

On page 4.13-7 of the Draft EIR, water demands are projected for the land uses proposed by the Southport Framework Plan The project is estimated to create a demand on water supplies of approximately 18 .4 million gallons per day (mgd) Buildout of the entire General Plan under the existing land use designations is estimated to require approximately 23.6 mgd. As stated on page 4 13-9 of the Draft EIR, this exceeds the City's current water supply entitlement of 211 mgd The update to the Water Master Plan will address the need for the City to secure an increase in the entitlement from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to accommodate the current buildout projections.

The comment is correct in noting .that given the limitations on water supply occurring on a statewide and regional basis, adequate consideration must be given to the impacts resulting from the projects requirements for additional water .supply and the related cumulative impacts on the city-wide supply. An additional mitigation measure will be added to the Draft EIR to ensure that the provision of adequate water supply. related to the development of the project area is consistent with the updated Water Master Plan. The Draft EIR will be amended as follows:

Page 4.13-10, Mitigation Measures of the EIR:

M.M. 4.13-1-4: Prior to the approval of a tentative map, the City will confirm that the project proposal is consistent with the requirements and water supply assumptions contained in the updated Water Master Plan or will secure a development agreement with the City for the provision of adequate water supply.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan II - 17 Final EIR Legal Services of Northern California Yolo County Law Office

619 North Street Attorneys: Paralegal: Woodland, CA 95695 Gary F. Smith Pedro A. Fung (916)662-1065 David E. Jones Support Staff: (916) 447-5795 Claire Morel-Seytoux Liz Sanchez FAX (916) 662 7941 Dahlia C. Long

Via Facsimile

May 4, 1994

Ms. Beth Tincher West Sacramento Community Development Department 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, California 95691

Dear Ms. Tinher:

Legal Services of Northern California represents lower income residents of the City of West Sacramento On their behalf we submit the following comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Southport Framework Plan ("DEIR"),

In general, we support the City's decision to proceed with a project that attempts to limit sprawl by calling for transit oriented villages, although, as set forth in further detail below, we remain concerned that the City has not included enough higher density designated land in each of the villages and throughout Southport.

The DEIR is well organized and well written. Nonetheless, based on the information contained in the DEIR, we have concerns regarding whether the City will comply with its substantive obligations under CEQA if it approves the project as proposed.

According to the DEIR, the project consists of an Implementation Plan and Design Guidelines.

We are concerned, as the DEIR project description itself acknowledges, that "[a] t present the Implementation Plan is incomplete. Once the DEIR has been circulated for public review, the Implementation Plan will be revised to address environmental concerns including, but not limited to, Swainson's hawk and traffic mitigation." Page 3-6. Our concern is that the sentences quoted above suggest that additional mitigation measures beyond those described in the DEIR will be required, and that the Implementation Plan will have to be revised accordingly. To the extent that additional mitigation measures are apparently anticipated, they should be discussed and analyzed in the DEIR. As additional 7-1 mitigation measures related to the Swainson' s hawk and traffic mitigation could have a profound impact on land use, housing, population and other related aspects of the project, the failure to have a complete Implementation Plan means that the project description has not been established with sufficient certainty to meet the requirements of CEQA nor is the DEIR's analysis of potentially significant impacts complete.

2. Analysis of Impacts

a, Land Use

The DEIR indicates that "[a] more detailed analysis of this Plan's consistency with the General Plan is being prepared by City staff. This document will be available for review and consideration prior to public hearing's before the City's officials. Page 4.1-25. As 2 inconsistency with an adopted community plan is a presumptive impact under CEQA, the more detailed analysis should have been included as part of the DEIR.

The DEIR also fails to analyze the financial impacts of the plan. According to the DEIR "[a]t this time the City anticipates that a Mello-Roos District will be established to help finance such facilities, However, specific policy and program directions for infrastructure financing are being evaluated for adoption. For this reason, the financial impacts associated with development within the Southport area are not analyzed as part of this EIR, and will be reviewed as part of subsequent evaluation program." Page 1-5.

This failure to analyze the financial impacts of the project is a major deficiency of the DEIR. The financial impacts associated with development in Southport will potentially have a significant impact on land uses, housing, population, public services and transportation.

The financial cost of infrastructure required under the plan largely will be shouldered by development itself, if a Mello-Roos district is formed. This in turn will have an impact on the economic feasibility of development, which will increase or decrease the feasibility of different types of development, including commercial, high density residential, lower density residential development etc., depending upon their relative ability to shoulder their share of the financial costs of infrastructure, amenities, service levels, and mitigation measures called for by the Plan The financial impacts of the project will therefore have an impact on land uses, housing and population. In addition, the financial costs of infrastructure, and the ability of development to shoulder those costs will have an impact on the level of public services that can be provided, and the level of parks, greenbelts, schools and bike paths, to name but a few amenities that can be provided and maintained. Moreover, the ability of development to shoulder infrastructure costs will have a bearing on traffic and transportation in the project area, as transportation infrastructure relies heavily upon the ability of development to pay for that infrastructure, and the limits on that ability to pay may limit the ability to provide certain levels of service with regard to transportation in the project area. In sum, the DEIR should analyze financial impacts.

The project is inconsistent with the General Plan policy calling for jobs/housing 1 balance (Policy 4). Page 4.1-27. The DEIR fails to adequately discuss or analyze this inconsistency.

There is also insufficient analysis of the potential inconsistency with General Plan Land Use Goal B calling for the City to designate adequate land in a range of residential densities to meet the housing needs of all income groups expected to reside in West Sacramento and Goal B, Policies 1, 2 and 3. Page 4.1-28. The 1990 SACOG Regional Housing Needs Plan includes a projection of the increased number of very low and low income households that the City needs to house between 1989 and the year 2010. According to the SACOG Plan, an additional 6948 very low and low income households will require housing in West Sacramento by 2010. Affordable housing for low and very low income households requires higher density housing. The amount of high density land designated in the Southport plan is projected to provide only 3,432 units. There is a shortfall between the need for housing at the higher density and the amount of higher density designated land in the Plan. This inconsistency should be analyzed in the DEIR and feasible mitigation measures and alternatives evaluated to address this impact, including increasing the amount of higher density designated land.

The DEIR concludes that there is a potentially significant impact on existing residential uses. Page 4.1-35 - 36. However, the mitigation measure proposed to address Impact 4-1-3 merely restates the City's existing obligations under CEQA to review project specific development applications for site-specific environmental impacts. This is not sufficient to conclude that the potential for direct impacts to existing neighborhoods (Page 76 4.1-37) will be mitigated to a level of less than significant.

Nor is there any reason to conclude, based on substantial evidence, that amending the General Plan will reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. (Page 4.1-38).

b. Transportation and Circulation

The DEIR fails to discuss, as noted above, the financial impacts of the project and the feasibility of the transportation mitigation measures identified in the section of the DEIR dealing with transportation impacts.

Population, Housing and Employment

The DEIR lists a few of the General Plan Housing Policies and Programs, but fails to analyze in any meaningful way the consistency of the Plan with not only these policies and programs, but the numerous housing polices and programs not mentioned, As the Housing Element Policies and programs largely revolve around the issue of housing affordability, in order to determine consistency with housing policies and programs the DEIR should analyze the affordability of housing to be developed in Southport. While there is some discussion in the DEIR with regard to densities permitted under the Plan, there is no analysis of expected housing prices, both for-sale and rental, that are anticipated for each density permitted under the Plan. Critical to this analysis is a discussion of financial impacts of the plan, because the coast of infrastructure, as noted above, will apparently be borne by development itself, which in turn will have an adverse impact on housing affordability.

It is unlikely that housing built under the Plan will be affordable to low and very low income households, in light of the costs attendant upon the significant infrastructure needs and environmental mitigations required by the Plan. The absence of housing affordable to low and very low income households will exclude many of the existing households in West Sacramento from obtaining housing in Southport, in light of their limited incomes. In fact, the information contained in the City's Housing Element indicates that 45% of the existing households will be excluded. Housing Element Table 11-17. The DEIR also overlooks information contained in the Housing Element demonstrating the high numbers of households who will be displaced in either directly or indirectly due to new development such as that in Southport and redevelopment, further exacerbating the City's housing shortage (See Housing Element Displacement Study). The DEIR fails to analyze this cumulative impact of the project. 7-8 We are concerned that the implementation of the project will have a significant adverse impact in that the new residential dwelling units resulting from the project will not be affordable to the vast majority of residents in the City of West Sacramento, As such, the project also conflicts with numerous existing General Plan Housing Element goals and policies, including the following:

Goal A:

To designate adequate land for a balanced range of housing types and densities for all economic segments of the community while emphasizing high quality development and homeownership.

The City shall continue to promote the development of a broad mix of housing types.

The City shall maintain an adequate supply of residential land in appropriate land use designations and zoning categories to accommodate projected

4 households growth and maintain normal vacancy rates.

Policy 3:

. . promoting the provision of housing for all economic segments of the community...

The City shall strive to provide for its share of the region's housing needs.

Policy 19:

The City shall encourage a mix of housing types throughout the City in order to increase residential choices.

To provide ample opportunities for those employed in West Sacramento to find affordable housing convenient to their places of employment...

Goal F:

To promote equal opportunity to secure safe, sanitary and affordable housing for all members of the community...

The project is in conflict with each of these goals and policies in that it will result in housing that is not affordable to all economic segments of the community.

The DEIR only discusses the Southport Framework Plan's consistency with Program 2 of the Housing Element's Policies and Programs, which provides that the City will 1 encourage certain levels of affordable housing in all new development. 7

The DEIR contains absolutely no analysis of how Program 2 will reduce the impact on affordability to a less than significant level.

The DEIR suggests that the proximity of jobs to housing is a beneficial impact that will reduce other impacts identified in the plan, including traffic and quality impacts. As the housing developed likely will be affordable only to moderate and above moderate income persons, in fact the opposite is likely to be true -- the housing generated is unlikely to be 7-10 affordable to those employed in the City and will not redress the jobs/housing imbalance, with its attendant traffic, noise and air quality impacts. The cumulative impacts section does not address these impacts of the ongoing jobs/housing imbalance, nor are mitigation measures discussed.

5 e. Drainage, Hydrology and Flooding

The DEIR says that the City anticipates certification of repairs and enhancements to levees in the Spring of 1994, in order to meet FEMA 100 year flood requirements. (Page 4.4-1). So far, although it is already May, it is our understanding that this certification has not been forthcoming. This has already had an adverse impact on other housing projects in the City, including the replacement units to be developed to replace the public housing 7-111 authority units to be removed as part of the Lighthouse Marina project. The DEIR should discuss more specifically whether it is realistic to expect certification of improvements in the near future, and what the impact of continued non-certification will be. J f. Public Services and Utilities

As noted above, there is no discussion of the financial impacts of the plan, and the -I 7-12 feasibility of providing the level of public services and utilities called for in the plan. This is a critical omission in the DEIR. J 3. Mitigation Measures

The DEIR does not comply with the requirement that an EIR analyze and demonstrate how proposed mitigation measures will mitigate adverse impacts. Guidelines § 15370. The feasibility of proposed mitigation measures for each of the impacts 7-13 acknowledges in the DEIR is left to the imagination of the reader. Moreover, the DEIR fails to weigh alternative mitigation measures. J The DEIR is deficient in that its discussion of housing impacts ignores the cumulative 1 impact of this project and other projects that can be expected to produce housing affordable 7-14 only to moderate and above moderate income persons. 1 4. Alternatives The analysis of project alternatives should include a range of alternatives. 1 Unfortunately, each of the alternatives looks at a lower level of development. None of the 7-15 alternatives includes a project that would increase the density of development, and increase the open space of the development. The range of alternatives is too narrow. J 5. Conclusion

Thank you for providing us with this opportunity to comment on the DEIR. We are hopeful that the City will revise and recirculate the DEIR accordingly.

Sincerely,

DAVID .J ES Attorney at Law

dej\wsac\southprt.mefli

7 LErUER 7. Legal Services of Northern California, David Jones, Attorney May 4, 1994

Sh1i D iSDJ k' I ht5I

As described in the Project Description, Section 3.0 of the Draft EIR, a Draft Implementation Plan has been prepared along with Design Guidelines to set forth the procedural and physical development guidance to facilitate a coordinated development program for the project area. The intent of revising the draft Implementation Plan is to incorporate mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR. The City does not intend that new, additional mitigation measures will be proposed.

Should the comments received during the public review period necessitate significant revisions to the Implementation Plan, the Design Guidelines, or the Framework Land Use Plan to the extent that the "Project" as defined by CEQA is modified, an Addendum or Supplement to the FIR would be required

Based on the comments received during the public review period, the Implementation Plan will not require significant revisions, but will only require a few clarifications, as indicated by the "Changes, Corrections and Additions to the Draft EIR" section of this document. These relatively minor revisions do not constitute a revised "Project" under CEQA.

As the comment indicates, consistency with the adopted General Plan must be considered in the impact analysis of this Draft EIR, Section 4. 1, Land Use of the Draft Effi fully evaluates the environmental impacts related to General Plan consistency which would be anticipated as a result of the implementation of the proposed Framework Plan This analysis compares the proposed land use designations contained in the Framework Plan with the existing General Plan land use designations and determines that significant impacts will occur. However, page 4.1-37 of the Draft EIR describes how the Implementation Plan incorporates conformance requirements which will reduce the impact to a Less-Than-Significant level.

City Staff will be preparing a report, for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council in conjunction with the Project approval, to identify amendments to the General Plan Policies which are required to provide language consistency between the General Plan and the Southport Framework Plan. These amendments are intended to be clarifications to ensure that the specified Conditions of Approval, Conformance Principles, and Mitigation Measures contained in this EIR are consistently reflected in the General Plan. The required amendments

Guy of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan II - 18 Final EIR are not expected to alter the General Plan conformance impact analysis contained in the Draft EIR.

Iii *i I)F

While the comment is correct in noting that the financing program for providing public facilities and services is critical in realizing the successful implementation of the Framework Plan, an analysis of the financial Impacts is not a CEQA requirement for an EIR if significant environmental impacts are not anticipated to result from such a financing program, (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15131 specifically states that economic or social effects "shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment") Should the City's proposed public facility financing program determine that modifications to the project are required to achieve fiscal feasibility, those modifications will be in the form of an Amendment to the Framework Plan and would require an analysis of the resulting environmental impacts associated with the revisions

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 7-4

The Draft Effi determined that the implementation of the Framework Plan will result in additional housing and employment opportunities The General Plan Policy (4) relating to the Goal A, the provisions of orderly, well-planned, and balance growth (page 4.1-27 of the Draft EIR) requires that the City monitor development to promote a "reasonable City-wide balance". This policy does not require that specific development proposals result in an absolute jobs- housing balance, but rather that the City, as a whole, strive to maintain such a balance.

As discussed on page 4.12-12 of the Draft EIR, the City currently has a jobs/housing ratio of 136:1. With development anticipated to occur with the implementation of the Southport Framework Plan, the ratio is expected to improve to 1.21:1. The Draft EIR concludes that the project will result in a beneficial impact to the City's jobs/housing balance

RESPONSE TO CoMMENT 7-5

As discussed on pages 4.1-33 and 4.1-34 of the Draft EIR, the Framework Plan will result in an increase in the amount of land allocated to residential uses over that which is allocated by the existing General Plan, including a higher percentage of multi-family units (page 4.12-11 of the Draft EIR) Additionally, the Framework Plan requires the clustering of residential uses to promote more efficient infrastructure provision. The Framework Plan is intended to result in a more orderly development pattern than allowed by the existing land use pattern provided for in the General Plan, including the increase in residential densities as deemed appropriate The proposed project is therefore more consistent with the General Plan policies, relative to the provision of a range of residential densities to meet the City's future housing needs, than the existing General Plan land use designations for the project area. As a result, the Draft EIR

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan II - 19 Final EIR WRFrFEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

concluded that the project will result in a beneficial impact to the provision of affordable housing (page 4.12-12 of the Draft EIR).

The commentor' s assertions regarding the Project's consistency with the Housing Element are misplaced. The Housing Element's goals with respect to the provision of high-density and affordable housing are the City-wide; the City is not required to meet its goals through the Project alone. In addition, a significant portion of the planning area is designated for high- density residential uses. The fact that there is no mandatory affordable housing requirement in the planning area does not make the Project inconsistent with the Housing Element's goals.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 20 Final EIR WRITFEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

_{1 iril1

The Draft EIR determined that a significant impact to existing land uses may result from the anticipated construction activities associated with the development of the project area, (pages 4.1-35 and 4.1-36). Until individual projects are proposed and analyzed, the extent of these impacts cannot be determined. CEQA does not require lead agencies to analyze those effects which are purely speculative (Guidelines sec. 15145). Rather, the analysis in an EIR on an area plan should contain the degree of specificity appropriate for an area plan. CEQA states that (an) FIR on a project such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance or a local general plan should focus on the secondary effects that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow" (Guidelines sec 15146) As specified in the Mitigation Measures contained in the Draft EIR (C P 4-1 1), project specific environmental review will be required which will determine impacts, including construction impacts, and will require specific mitigation to reduce those impacts to a Less-Than-Significant level.

RESPONSE TO CoMMENT 7-7

Please .see Response to Comment 7-3.

As discussed in Response to Comment 7-5 above, the Framework Plan proposes an increase in the amount and densities of residential uses over what is allowed by the existing General Plan The Draft EIR on page 3-12 outlines the objectives of the Framework Plan which include an emphasis on providing a mixture of residential uses and densities and the logical extension of public facilities and services While the provision of affordable housing is clearly an nnportant City planning objective, a detailed analysis of the affordability of housing associated with individual development proposals is not possible until such time as site specific proposals are submitted It is the intention of the Framework Plan to provide the opportunity for a range of residential types and densities, not to mandate the development of housing serving the populations of specific income groups for specific properties located within the project area As noted in Response to Comment 7-6, the EIR does not need to be as detailed as an EIR for the specific projects that will follow. The Framework Plan gives general location guidelines for affordable housing Specific projects will be measured against these criteria, the Housing Element, and the General Plan Therefore the EIR does not analyze the environmental impacts associated with the provision of affordable housing on specific properties in the project area.

The commentor has selectively quoted the Housing Element. All Housing Element goals and policies can be found on page 11- 11 of the General Plan Policy document.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 21 Final EIR ri

The Draft EIR discusses Program 2 of the Housing Element including the voluntary goals and guidelines which individual developers are encouraged to comply with. As discussed in the Response to Comment 7-8 above, the Framework Plan proposes land use designations which will provide the opportunity for a range of residential types and densities, including a significant amount of multi-family uses. Individual development proposals will be evaluated to determine the provision of housing for specific income ranges. To evaluate prices and sales rates at this time would be a speculative exercise. Therefore this EIR cannot analyze the amount of housing in specific income ranges which will be ultimately provided as a result of the implementation of the Framework Plan.

The Draft EIR on page 4.12-9 describes the formula the City uses in determining the jobs/housing balance on a city-wide basis On page 4.12-12 of the Draft EIR, the project's impact on the existing jobs/housing balance is presented. The Draft EIR concludes that the project will result in an Improvement in the jobs/housing ratio and in the land use relationships between housmg, employment and transportation facilities The comment is speculating on the affordability of the residential development which is likely to result from theimplementation of the project. As indicated in the preceding responses, the Framework Plan allows for a range of residential types and densities. It is not intended to mandate the development of housing serving the populations of specific income groups.

RESPONSE TO CoMMENT 7-11

Comment noted. FEMA has advised the City (by letter dated July 1994) that new designations and maps will become effective January 1, 1995 Most of Southport will be located within Zone X, which is classified as outside the 100 year floodplain. Please see Response to Comment 11- 1.

Please see Response to Comment 7-3.

The comment indicates that an EIR must "analyze and demonstrate how proposed mitigation measures will mitigate adverse impacts", citing Guidelines sec. 15370. This section contains no such requirement. Section 15370 defines "mitigation" to include any means of avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, reducing, eliminating, or compensating for the impact.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 22 Final EIR WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

In accordance with CEQA requirements (Section 15126(c), CEQA Guidelines), the Draft EIR identifies and describes reasonable mitigation measures intended to reduce adverse impacts for each significant impact. As discussed on page 1-5 of the Draft EIR, this EIR has been prepared at a Program EIR level and incorporates policy measures designed to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts associated with development of the project area. The EIR is formatted in such a way that the impacts and mitigation measures are described in sufficient detail which clearly links how each measure will mitigate the identified impacts. The Draft EIR also contains supplemental mitigation measures which are recommended to be incorporated into the Framework Implementation Plan A Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP), as required by CEQA, will be prepared and adopted concurrent with final action on the project by the City. Every attempt has been made to include all reasonable mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts.

See Response to Comment 7-5.

RESPONSE TO CoMMENT 7-15

As discussed on page 5-1 of the Draft EIR, a range of alternatives to the proposed project have been described and evaluated. In accordance with CEQA (Section 15126(d), the alternatives should be selected with a focus towards reducing significant environmental impacts. The alternatives which are evaluated in the Draft EIR reorganize the proposed development pattern and/or reduce the proposed density in order to limit impacts to identified site resources.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 23 Final EIR LETTER 8 SUPERINTENDENT BOARD OF EDUCATION DAVID MILLER Ph. D. HAL WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT SUSAN CARTER, VICE PRESIDENT LINDA BROOKS EVELYN I. EKLUND PAT FLINT STUART KNOX

May 4, 1994

Ms. Beth Tincher, Senior Planner Community Development Department City of West Sacramento 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, CA 95691

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Southport Framework Plan. We further appreciate the inclusion of important factual data included in the plan that results in the determination that proposed projects will result in significant cumulative impacts." (4,13-8-2)

New development projects in the Southport area will generate 8,506 new students from single family and multi-family dwelling units. The district calculates cumulative impacts as follows:

Students Generated From 10.257 Single Family Units and 3.794 Multi-Family Units

Cost to House District Students Such Student* Total Cost

K-5 4,132 $ 11,808 $ 48,790.656 6-8 1,944 15,128 29,408.832 9-12 2A30 18,148 44,099.640

8,508 $ 122,299,128

*Cost to House Students at $100,000/acre Land Cost (Appendix A) The mitigation language outlined in (C.P. 4.13-8-1) through (C.P. 4.13-8-4) is less I specific than the district would deem necessary to guarantee adequate mitigation. The words 8-1 "fair share," while well meaning, are ambiguous. We suggest that language be added to the conformance principles as follows:

930 WEST ACRES ROAD WEST SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95691 (916) 371-9300 FAX (916) 371-8319 Beth Tincher, City of West Sacramento May 4, 1994 Page 2.

"Developers in the Southport Framework Plan Area shall provide mitigation to adequately house students generated by development within that area as determined by the Washington Unified School District, in consultation with the City of West Sacramento."

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide input and do not hesitate to call if you have questions.

DM:cI Attachment Lk3Jl V'Z4 k!LwJ1

A..Arcitcct'sFee.or..Fians $ 410,00. B. OSA Plans Check Fee 31,600 C. School Planning, Plans Check Fee 4600 D. Preliminary Tests 2,000 E. Other Costs, Energy Cons. & Advertising 18,000 Total Plans S 464,200

A. Utility Services 150,000 B Off-site DcvcJopmcnt 225,000 C. Site Dcvclopmcnt, Service 360,000 D. Site Dvvclopmcnt,,Cencral 240,000 E. New Construction 3,402,000

F Unconventional Energy Source 235-000 Total -'Construction $4,612,000 Total Items II, 111 and IV $6,096,200 JUNIOR HIGH ajy cQR1cT’QN-cQIS.

13,1 1,13

Ill. Plans A. Architect's Fee for Plans B. OSA Plans Check Fee C. School Planning, Plans Check Fee D. Preliminary Tests E. Other Costs Encrjr Cons & Mvcrtising Total Plans - -M1 IV. Construction A. Utility Services $ 230,000 B. Off-site Development 210,000 C Site Dcvclopmcnt, Scrvzcc 715,000 D. Site Dcvclopmcnt, £3cncral 510,000 E. Ncw Construction 6,845,400 F. Unconventional Energy Source 420.000 Total Construction $8,930,400 Total Itcms II, Ill and IV Contingency 10% Tests (Construction) Inspection Furniture and Movable Equipment kS*

A. Architect's Fee for Plans $1,110,500 B. OSA Plans Check Fee 981500 C. School Planning, Plans Check Fee 3,700 D. Preliminary .Tests 6,000 E. Other Costs, Energy Cons. & Advertising i5.400 Total - Plans $1,274,100 IV. Construction

A. Utility Services $ 440,000 B Off-site Development 450,000 C. Site Development, Service 1,450,000 D Site D..!!pmCnt,Gcncral 1,090,000. E. New Construction 14,151,400 F. Unconventional Energy Source 836300 Total - Construction $18,417,900 Total Items II, Ill and IV $23,729,000 Contingency 10% 2,372,900 Tests (Construction) 184,500 Inspection 100,000 Furniture and Movable Equipment W" TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $27,222,200 ESTIMATED COST PER STUDENT $18,148 I RESPONSE25

LErrER 8. Washington Unified School District, David Miller, Superintendent May 4, 1994

Comment noted. The mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR require that applicable school impact fees be paid by developers prior to the issuance of building permits, and that the fees imposed be the current fees in place at that time.

The language change suggested by the comment applies to a conformance principle included within the Southport Framework Plan. In response to this comment, the City of West Sacramento has reviewed and considered this language and will entertain an amendment to the Implementation Plan through the public hearing process.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 24 Final EIR TO: Tad Stern, Wilidan Associates

FROM: Beth Tincher, Senior Planner DATE: May 3, 1994 SUBJECT: Southport Framework Plan Draft EIR Comments

While the City circulated an errata sheet to the Draft EJR, the City is submitting these additional comments to be addressed in the Response to Comments document.

Item Page Rgfggraph Comments 1, Table 4,1 1 Change the title of this table to Developed and Approved Uses. Also, change the title of the subtotal line of this table to Developed and Approved Uses Total. This table does not accurately reflect existing and approved projects. The text indicates that approved projects are from June, 1993, but the table indicates that approved projects reflect projects existing and approved as of May, 1990. The table should be updated to reflect the June, 1993 figures. Also, separate the existing acres from approved project acres. Please include in the footnote which approved projects are included. Approved projects include SIP, Southport Keys, and Pheasant Hollow. The Port Expansion has not been included in the approved projects because it has only received approval for General Plan Amendments, but has not received approval of a map or a development agreement that would guarantee development rights. Item Page Paragraph Comments 1 Also make a note of the Port Expansion 9-2 processing point in the 4th paragraph of Page 4.1-8.

No industrial acreage is shown on Table 4.1-1, but SIP is an approved project. In addition, there are 144.53 acres of WRI in the SIP project. That is in addition to the WRC uses. This is shown incorrectly on the PBR plan and buildout calculations. Acreage should accurately reflect the approved Port Expansion General Plan Amendments. The CC designation only shows 1.98 acres, but the approved Pheasant Hollow plan includes 10 acres, so where is the Pheasant Hollow project reflected? Is it located within the General Commercial acreage? The acreage of 246 for roads and railway seems awfully low.

Please note what parks have been included in the existing parks (RP) designation. Once all the existing and approved project figures have been changed, the buildout calculations prepared by PBR (including each quadrant buildout calculation) must be amended to correct the inconsistency among the tables. In addition, all sections of the document should be examined and potentially new impact analyses may need to be performed based on the new figures. Other tables may need to be amended, such as Table 4.1-10. 2. Table 4.1-5, 6, 7, 4.1-15,18,21, The explanation for NP has been left out 8 &23 of the legend. Item Page Paragraph Comments 3. Table 4.1-2 4.1-7 Does the information contained in this 1 table coincide with the existing residential figures from Table 41-1?

4, Table 4.1-3 4.1-10 The title of this table should be 15 Approved and Proposed Projects. J 5, Figure 4.2-1 4.2-5 The legend includes a soil designation of Ss, but no Ss designations are found j on the exhibit.

6. 4.3-7 2nd This paragraph should follow the paragraph on lateral spreading on page j

7. 4.3-6 Expansive It is not clear where expansive soils 1 Soils exist. Is it possible to incorporate an exhibit or this section? J 8. 4.4-1 5th Improvements have been made to the levee system. The City is awaiting certification of these levees and 9 redesignation from the A-99 - designation to a protected designation. J 9. 4.4-3 2nd What is NGVD? Please spell out. In addition, a figure would help explain the drainage system. J 10, 4.6-2 Other roads Levee is misspelled. Please. conduct a word search for levy and replace with levee.

11. 4,6-19 1st This study examines traffic impact fees. The City Council adopted the Impact Fee Study and a resolution adopting a fee, but the amount of the fee has not yet been determined. Staff is currently 942 preparing an additional study showing what amount of fee/assessment a buyer is willing to pay and how the City fees compare to other developments in the same housing market.

3 Item Page Paragraph Comments -j 12. 4.8-13 MM 4.8-3 Add the following word: Restrict 913 building construction...

13. 4.9-26 MM 4.9-2 It should be explained in the document that the design of the canals not only address sensitive habitat mitigation, but also addresse flood control issues. The 9-14 width of the canals will include adequate flows for flood control. J 14. 4.10-2 Archeological The Southport Area Plan conducted by 1 Records Yolo County indicates the SIP and Port 9-15 sites have been surveyed. J 15, 4.13-3 2nd The Northeast Reservoir is located 1 between 3rd and 4th on Williams 916 instead of 2nd Street. J 16. 4,13-20 Solid Waste This section should discuss AB 3939 1 and how this does or does not meet 9-17 these requirements. I 17. 5-13 3rd The third project is the Port of Sacramento Expansion project. J

11 LETTER 9. City of West Sacramento, Beth Tincher, Senior Planner May 3, 1994

Ii SXS)iY l I DId £.3I

The purpose of including Table 4.1-1 (page 4.1-5 of the Draft EIR) was to depict the existing level and type of development in the project area. Table 4.1-1 does not include approved projects and does not reflect those projects included in the cumulative analyses contained in this EIR Table 4.1-4, Build-out Calculations, includes land use acreages for existing development and approved projects and the land use acreages proposed by the Southport Framework Plan. The information included in Table 4.1-4 reflects the June, 1993 figures referenced by the comment and was used in all the cumulative analyses contained in this EIR as agreed upon by City Staff. In order to eliminate confusion between the information contained in the two subject tables, the Draft EIR will be amended to delete Table 4.1-1 and to cite that the source of the information contained in Table 4.1-4 is the Southport Framework Plan, June 1993 Table 4 1-1 has no bearing upon the land use analysis and its removal will not alter any of the conclusions of the EIR.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 9-2

. . Six additional projects have also been proposed for development within the Southport Project Area. These are Gainsborough/Bayside, Port of Sacramento Expansion, Newport Lakes, Southport .Gateway, Rivermont. and Southport .90. The Port of Sacramento Expansion has obtained approval of general plan amendment and, re-zoning, the others These-pfojeets have not received any level of development approval.

Comment noted. The Draft EIR will be amended to correct Figures 4.1-5, 4.1-6, and 4.1-7 to include the "NP Neighborhood Park" designation in the legends.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 9-4

As discussed in Response to Comment 9-1, Table 4.1-1 was intended to present land use acreages for existing development within the project area, but will be deleted. Table 4.1-2 was intended to give a more detailed description of major development existing in the project area.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 25 Final EIR WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

The information contained in this table is accurate and the table will remain in the EIR.

ft. .xS1iJ i i gw E1

Comment noted. The Draft EIR will be amended to revise the title of Table 4.1-3 on page 4.1- 10 to "Approved and Proposed Development Within the Southport Project Area".

I:i D D (IXSA'

Comment noted. The Draft EIR will be amended to revise the legend on Figure 4.2-1, on page 4.2-5 to eliminate the "Ss Sycamore Silty Clay Loam " designation.

Comment noted. The discussion on erosion caused by wave action on. unprotected. banks on page 4.3-7 paragraph two, will be moved to page 4.3-6 following the paragraph subtitled "Lateral Spreading".

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 9-8

The Draft EIR on page 4.3-12 discusses potential impacts associated with expansive soils occurring in the project area and determines that a significant impact may result. Standard Condition of Approval S.C.A. 49 requires the submittal of soils and geotechnical reports on .a project specific basis. Mitigation Measure M.M.4. 3.1 specifically requires that recommendations to minimize the adverse effects of expansive soils be included in the reports. Illustration of expansive soils at this level of detail would be extremely general, and would not offer additional insight regarding constraints to development, as these soils are mitigatable

Please see Response to Comment 11-1.

Comment noted. The Draft EIR will be amended as follows:

Page 4.4-3, second paragraph:

The R. D. 900 Main Drainage Canal and lateral canals are man-made unlined canals with relatively flat invert elevations of approximately 0.0 feet NGVD (National Geodetic

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 26 Final EIR W1UImN Cor1MErs AND RESPONSES

Vertical Datum).

An exhibit (Figure 4.4-1) will be added to the Draft EIR inserted following page 4.4-3 which depicts the location of major drainage facilities in the project area.

Di (IXSI.) b' I i13U

Comment noted. The Draft EIR will be corrected to confirm the spelling of "levee" throughout the Document.

Comment noted. The Draft EIR will be amended as follows:

.Another study, referred to as the West Sacramento Traffic Fee Study, was completed to support the City's new development fee ordinance. This study examines traffic impact fees which will be set sets traffic fees for new development to pay for transportation improvements in West Sacramento required to achieve acceptable levels of service through the Year 2015. The City Council has adopted the study and the City Staff is currently preparing an evaluation of recommended fee amounts .....

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 9-13

Comment noted. The comment refers to Mitigation Measure 4-8-4 on page 4.8-14. The following amendment will be made to the Draft EIR:

Building construction activities for individual projects within the Southport area shall be restricted.....

Comment noted. The Draft EIR will be amended to include additional discussion pertaining to the design of drainage canals and the relationship to sensitive habitat and flood control.

Page 4.9-25, first paragraph:

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 27 Final EIR WRITTEN CoMM1rs AND RESPONSES

Direct modifications to levee banks, drainage canals, and seasonal wetlands may be necessary to accommodate roadway crossings, flood control improvements, and specific development plans such as the proposed marina and water-related commercial and industrial uses. The design of these drainage facilities will take into consideration the requirements for flood control, including the width and depth of canals, as well as the accommodation of sensitive biological habitat.

4:31 SJf tLtJ I I *d £31

Comment noted. The Draft EIR will be amended as follows:

Page 4.10-2, Archaeological Resources, second paragraph:

.Archaeological resource zones are defined as surveyed lands that are only suspected to contain such resources, while the cultural resource zones are those which are known to contain resources (Figure 4,10-1). The Southport Area Plan prepared by Yolo county indicated that the Southport Industrial Park (SIP) and the Port Expansion site have both been previously surveyed for resources.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 9-16

Comment noted. The Draft EIR will be amended as follows:

Page 4.13-3, Water Transmission Facilities, second paragraph:

.me Northeast Reservoir, located on Williams between 3rd and 4th Streets near 2nd street, has an 8 MGD booster pump station.

Foul W-A

The Draft Eir discusses solid waste disposal and the expected impacts resulting from implementation of the project in section 4.13, pages 4.13-20 - 4.13-25 including compliance with AB 939 which required cities and counties to develop a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) AB 2707 stipulates additional requirements related to household hazardous waste The City of West Sacramento has prepared and adopted required elements and implementing plans. am Comment noted. The Draft EIR will be amended as follows:

Page 5-13, first paragraph:

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 28 Final EIR WRn -rEN CommiENTsAND ii

For this analysis it was assumed that only four projects that are currently approved (Pheasant Hollow, Southport Keys, and Southport Industrial Park and the Port of Sacramento Expansion project) would be developed.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11-29 Final EIR STATE OF CALIFORNIA-.-BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 3, SACRAMENTO P. 0. BOX 942874-MS 41 SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001 TDD (916) 741-4509 FAX (916) 323-7669 Telephone (916) 327-3859

May 3, 1994

FYOLO16 03-YOL-84 Southport Framework Plan DE I R Ms. Beth Tincher Community Development Department Planning Division City of West Sacramento 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, CA 95691

PriItTT

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above referenced document.

COMMENTS:

The Southport area has regional access from the north via U.S. 50 and State Route 84 and from the south via State Route 84. 1 For a viable plan ii with less congestion, the City must aggressively pursue improvements to Sacramento River trip crossings and not dismiss significant impacts to U.S. 50 as too expensive to mitigate.

(Refer to page 4.6-11 Goal A Policy 13.) With the U.S. 50 Pioneer Bridge being impacted as a result of plan development, this policy

should also include improvements to the Pioneer Bridge. In addition, - the phrase "and development of the Sutterville Bridge" should be modified since there is no local consensus as to even the feasibility of such a project.

The development of the Southport area will have significant impacts on State facilities (le. State Route 275, 84, 50 and related 1 interchanges). The City of West Sacramento should ensure that 10-3 individual developers pay their "fair share" towards needed improvements to offset these impacts.

The report addresses long term impacts to the State highway system, however, greater analysis should be placed on addressing interim or short term impacts. For example, given the unlikely construction of the 104 Sutterville Bridge, Caltrans anticipates significant traffic volumes impacting the Freeport Bridge. An analysis of the potential impacts to this bridge in the interim, as well as long term conditions, should be provided. Ms. Beth Tincher May 3, 1994 Page 2

(Refer to page 4.1-28 Goal C Policy 7.) Since the Southport Framework Plan does not contain detailed maps regarding future proposed developments, guidance for the plan developments relating to Caltrans access policy is provided. Access to new major commercial centers along 10-5 State Route 84 (Jefferson Boulevard) should be limited to major intersections. Individual driveways should be discouraged. Signal spacing should be 800 feet minimum with a 1200 foot desirable distance. These considerations should tie in with Policy #9.

(Refer to Table 4.6-1) In addition to Level of Service (LOS) for signalized intersections, the table should also indicate the amount of traffic delay.

(Refer to Table 4.6-9.) Intersection 21 is shown as an all way stop in Figure C 2.4; What is the correct configuration? If the intersection is to be stop controlled, it should be analyzed as such.

(Refer to Table 4.6-8.) Please provide the percentage of traffic using the Pioneer and Tower Bridges. The increase in traffic traveling east is 31,200 vehicles per day. This was derived by subtracting future base year traffic from future plus project traffic. However, multiplying the 10-8 25 percent of traffic distributed to the east by the daily trip generation yields approximately 62,600 vehicles per day. These discrepancies should be remedied.

(Regarding Intersection #12, the U.S. 50 eastbound onramp from South River Road.) The DEIR states that if the proposed plan is implemented, this intersection will operate at LOS F. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) considers this to be a significant environmental effect that cannot be mitigated because of excessive cost--the cost of widening the Pioneer Bridge in order to provide dual onramp lanes. What is the basis for this determination? If the City's assumption is based on 10-9 construction cost, the DEIR failed to show any dollar figures or analysis substantiating such reasoning. Additionally, what are the costs associated with not mitigating the significant effects caused by development, such as vehicle hours of delay and air quality costs? Could the traffic demands at this location be diverted to other locations?

(Refer to Mitigation Measure (MM) 4-6-3.) A significant unmitigated impact is not acceptable to Caltrans, even though this condition is at an on-ramp intersection. The operation and safety deterioration of increased ramp traffic crossing the Pioneer Bridge as a result of cumulative plan developments will cause the eastbound 50 on ramp (from 1040 South River Road) mainline merge to become extremely difficult. The mitigation proposed in MM 4-6-4 may help. How will the zoning changes proposed in mitigation 4-6-4 affect traffic demands at this ramp? Ms. Beth Tincher May 3, 1994 Page 3

(Refer to MM 4-6-4.) Are the density reductions for Alternative B consistent with those proposed for MM 4-6-4? If not, provide the 10-111 turning volumes associated with the reductions in MM 4-6-4. J (Refer to MM 4-6-4) Caltrans should be consulted before a typical section is approved for Jefferson Boulevard (State Route 84) as capacity 10-121 is evaluated in the Southport Framework Plan area at build out; this situation also applies to future right-of-way needs/dedications along the State highway.

A Mitigation Monitoring and Implementation Plan for the Framework Area 113 should be provided for the mitigation measures within this document. J Concerning drainage, care should be taken when developing this plan area to preserve and perpetuate the existing drainage pattern of the State Route 84 highway. Particular consideration must be given to cumulative 10-14 increased storm runoff to insure that drainage capacity remains adequate and future highway drainage problems are not created.

Drainage system improvements required with the Southport Framework Plan 1 shall be subject to State of California approval where its facilities 10-15 are affected. J As planned development occurs within the Southport Framework Plan area, any work that must take place within the State highway right of way will require an encroachment permit. All matters relating to the encroachment process, which include access, grading, and drainage issues, should be sent to:

Mr. Michael Bauer 1046 Caltrans District 3 Encroachment Permits 201 D Street, Suite K P.O. Box 911 Marysville, CA 95901

(Refer to Page 4.6-11 Goal B) Some of the City's policies seem contradictory, e.g., Policy 3 will ensure Yolobus provide adequate transit while Policy 4 will bring Regional Transit to provide West 10-17 Sacramento - Sacramento service. A more general policy to work with transit providers to respond to local needs and provision of West Sacramento-Sacramento service should be included.

(Refer to Page 4.6-12) In addition to Policies 7 and 9, land use design guidelines (zoning codes) should encourage density and "transit friendly" developments. Indented curbs, bus shelters, etc. will not necessarily result in "transit friendly" developments. This point is 10-18 stated in principle on page 4.6-27 (C.P. 4-6-4) and page 4.6-35 (second paragraph), but should probably be stated as a "policy" under General Ms. Beth Tincher May 3, 1994 Page 4

Plan Goals and Policies for Goal B. Examples of "transit friendly" measures would include bus bays and buspool waiting areas near larger buildings, transit compatible roadway turning geometrics and short distances from buildings to well designed and strategically located bus stops to enhance convenience.

All industrial and commercial development within the Southport Framework 119 Plan area should join or form a Transportation Management Association (TMA). J

Given the intense population growth of 40,000 new residents in the plan area by the year 2010 coupled with increasing traffic congestion, the following transportation demand and system management strategies should be considered to mitigate traffic impacts:

L- An average vehicle ridership objective of 1.4 persons per vehicle during peak commute hours for individual employers meeting an established employment size threshold and collectively for small employers meeting an established employment threshold at a single employment center,

2.- Neighborhood telecommuting work centers to avert commute trips. 10-20 3.- Bicycle facilities (showers and lockers in business sites for commuters and customers).

4,- Safe and secure pedestrian and bicycle access to area parks,shopping, and other amenities.

5.- Strategically situated park and ride facilities are an important part of any mitigation plan for reducing cumulative traffic impacts. The City of West Sacramento should address establishing a program where all new development(s) participate in the cost of developing Park and Ride facilities. We suggest that this participation should be based on one parking space per forty housing units.

If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Ken Champion at 916-324 -6642.

Sincerely,

JEFF PULVERMAN, Chief Advance Transportation System Development Branch The City of West Sacramento has identified a Sacramento Bridge River Crossing within the City's General Plan Circulation Element While the City will continue negotiations with the State and the City of Sacramento for this crossing, it is more realistic that Southport will be developed under a three-bridge scenario (Jefferson, Industrial, and South River Road). The Sacramento River Bridge crossing is not essential for the development of the Southport area, based upon the traffic analysis conducted for the DEIR.

Regional planning studies have recognized that the Pioneer Bridge is expected to worsen to LOS F conditions by year 2015. However, this has been determined to be . regional issue caused by continued growth in the entire Sacramento region, not Just in West Sacramento

RESPONSE TO CoMMENT 10-2

The Sutterville Bridge is contained in the City of West Sacramento's Circulation Element of the General Plan. However, the City has acknowledged that the Sutterville Bridge will be financially and politically difficult to build, and therefore the year 2015 analysis contained in the draft EIR did not assume that this bridge would be constructed by year 2015. Goal A, Policy 13 as contained on page 4.6-11 on the Draft EIR is from the adopted General Plan and is not a suggested mitigation or implementation measure for this project.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 103

The City of West Sacramento has repeatedly demonstrated the commitment to improve freeway interchanges located within the City. The City has completed or is in the process of completing Project Study Reports (PSRs) for interchanges at 1-80/Enterprise Boulevard, US-SO/Harbor Boulevard, and State Route 275. In addition, the City is currently working with Caltrans on final design for improvements at the 1-80/Enterprise Boulevard and Business 80/Jefferson Boulevard interchanges.

The City is in the process of adopting development impact fees to fund improvements to the freeway interchanges in the City, to result in LOS D or better conditions through year 2015. Conformance Principle 4-6-2 indicates that each developer will pay its "Fair Share" of the required regional improvements.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11-30 Final EIR WRrLTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

14 *i . 1DrsiSi,1 k I DII [ti

The Sutterville Bridge was not included in any of the cumulative analyses, (please see Response to Comment 10-1 and 10-2). Although buildout of the project is expected to generate some traffic on the Freeport Bridge, the ultimate volumes are less than 2,000 vehicles per day which will not cause the need to implement capacity improvements to the Freeport Bridge.

4 fi iJI I DIda [IJ1

In November 1992, the City Council adopted Street Standards for the Southport area. These standards established an intersection separation of at least 500 feet on all arterials, which met Caltrans standards. The average spacing between traffic signals on Jefferson Boulevard (State Route 84) is planned to be approximately 1,500 feet between Business 80 and Loop Road in the southern portion of the project area, which is well beyond the minimum and consistent with the "desirable" distance stated within the comment. The entire segment of Jefferson Boulevard through the project area is expected to be access controlled with a landscaped median and limited access to adjacent properties

A Project Report for the segment of Jefferson Boulevard (State Route 84) from Park Boulevard to Marshall Road is nearing completion. Details of this Project Report are available from the City of West Sacramento Engineering Department.

Comment noted. Table 4.6-1 of the Draft EIR will be revised to include the relationship between the LOS and the delay at signalized intersections. This table is include within the Summary of Changes.

MIM

Intersection 21 (Jefferson/Loop Road) was analyzed as a signalized intersection. Figure C-2.4 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR will be revised accordingly.

The trip distribution percentages shown in Table 4.6-8 were derived by performing a select-link traffic assignment of the project traffic using the City of West Sacramento traffic model The year 2015 volumes shown in Figure 4.6-4 represent the volumes directly from the traffic model.

Figure 4.6-4 shows volumes on the Pioneer Bridge, but does not present volumes on the I Street and Tower Bridges. Some of the project traffic is expected to use these two bridges, but

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan II - 31 Final EIR WRn-rEN CommENTsAND RESPONS19

percentages are assumed to be re-matched on a one-to-one basis as explained below.

The project traffic impacts were determined using the City of West Sacramento traffic model which is a detailed subset of SACOG's regional traffic model. Adding the Southport Framework Plan to the Model substantially altered the matching of trip productions and attractions throughout the region and particularly in West Sacramento.

An example of how this rematching can affect traffic forecasts is as follows: The year 2015 base model contains a job located in East Sacramento that is filled by a person driving from a residence in Davis That person uses the Pioneer Bridge on their way to work After the Southport Framework Plan is added to the Model, a resident from the Framework Plan area replaces the Davis resident in filling the job in East Sacramento. That person also uses the Pioneer Bridge on their way to work. The net effect of the redistribution is not net change to the Pioneer Bridge. This is a very simplified example, but it demonstrates the rematching of productions and attractions due to a large project.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 10-9

The basis for the determination that widening the on-ramp and the Pioneer Bridge is not feasible is the .Concept Approval Report for 1-80/U.S. 50 in West Sacramento which was approved by FHWA, Caltrans, and the City of West Sacramento. The document did not indicate a cost to widen the ramp or the bridge.

Associated effects of this impact, such as air quality conditions and vehicle delay, are accounted for within the EIR air quality and traffic analyses, which are program-level studies appropriate for a General Plan.

The City of West Sacramento actively promotes transportation systems management measures designed to reduce vehicular traffic and encourage the use of alternative transportation modes.

The zoning changes proposed in Mitigation Measure 4-6-4 on page 4.6-31 of the Draft EIR will reduce traffic demands at the eastbound highway 50 on-ramp by 5%. The ramp volume demand thus decreases from 2,600 to 2,500 vehicles per hour, which is still LOS F.

Density reductions for Alternative B are different than the land use modifications discussed in Mitigation Measure 4-6-4 on page 4.6-31 of the Draft EIR. Project Alternative B results in 216,792 total daily trips, whereas the land use modifications would reduce the project trip

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 32 Final EIR WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

generation from 250,483 to 235,042. Thus the resulting turning movements associated with the modifications discussed in MM 4-6-4 fall between the turning volumes shown for the Project and Alternative A.

The City is currently working on a Project Report for Jefferson Boulevard (State Route 84) and is expecting to submit a second draft to Caltrans in June 1994. The City has been and will continue to consult with Caltrans on all right-of-way and dedication issues related to Jefferson Boulevard,

itIIK

As discussed on page 1-5 of the Draft EIR, a draft Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the Southport Framework Plan will be prepared as a separate document and considered by the City in conjunction with the Final EIR certification. A Final MMP will be prepared consistent with the City's final action of the project.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 10-14

The Standard Conditions of Approval relating to drainage, hydrology, and flooding are identifiei on page 4.4-11 and 4.4-12 of the Draft EIR and include requirements which will address the pr

Comment noted. Standard Condition of Approval S.C.A. 42, as presented on page 4.4-12 of the Draft EIR, will be amended as follows within the Draft EIR and Southport Implementation Plan:

,The improvements to the system shall be subject to the approval of the City and the appropriate Reclamation District and by Caltrans should their facilities be affected.

Comment noted. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Southport Framework Plan is a policy document. All future development proposed in the project area will be subject to detailed project level review and appropriate conditions of approval established, including the requirement for encroachment permits.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11-33 Final EIR WRITTEN Coiir'rs AND RESPONSES

Comment noted. The goals and policies cited by the comment are from the City's adopted General Plan. Suggested revisions would require a General Plan Amendment which is not the subject of this EIR. However, the suggested revisions may be considered by the City at a later time.

Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment 1047.

Comment noted. The Draft EIR (page 4.7-16) discusses the requirements of the City's adopted Transportation System Management Ordinance which specifies that all development proposals will be required to participate in the program. Also, as provided for in S.C.A 5 on page 4,6-28 of the Draft EIR, developers may submit for City approval a Transportation Management Program, which could include the formation of a Transportation Management Association,

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 10-20

Comment noted, The Draft EIR discusses the approach to providing and encouraging alternative transportation modes (page 4.6-34) and how the proposed project incorporates these strategies. The adopted TSM ordinance, as discussed on page 4.6-35 of the Draft EIR, includes the provisions outlined within this comment.

The Draft EW determines that the project has been designed and planned to provide feasible options to automobile transport including bicycle and rideshare facilities The Draft EIR concludes (page 4.6-37) that the project will result in the expansion of bus service, park-and-ride lots, and light rail.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 34 Final EIR LETTER 11

Ms. Reth Tincher, Senior Planner City of West Sacramento 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, CaliforniaLM4JI

We have, reviewed the draft environmental impact repoxt for the Southport Fr amework Plan provided with your letter of March 11 1994 for development of the Southport area in eastern Yolo county between the Sacramento River and the Yolo B7,assaHitersL -teW. On page 4.4-1, paragraph 4.2.2, the termZone AR should be defined The City is repairing and enhancing levees to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency criteria by Spring 1994 Recent Corps investigations indicate the 100-year flood elevations in the Sacramento! West Sacramento area may be 6 to 18 inches higher than previously estimated for the Federal Emergency Management Agency 100-year flood 11-1I Because of these investigations, further evaluation and upgrading of the levees protecting West Sacrainento/Southport area may be needed prior to certification. Mr John Sibilsky, Chief 1 of our Regional Planning Branch, can provide you with additional information. His telephone number is j (916) 557-6722.

Also, a Department of the Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water. Act may be required. Mr. Art Champ, Chief of our 11-2 Regulatory Section, can provide you with additional information His telephone number is (916) 557-5252. J

If we can be of further assistance, -please contact us, Sincerely,

Chief, Planning W1UTFEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

LErFER 11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walter Yep, Chief, Planning Division May 12, 1994

Comment noted. The Draft EIR will be amended to clarify the 100-year flood elevations and the implications on the project impacts as follows: page 4.4-1, Flooding and Flood Control, second paragraph:

page 4.4-1, Flooding and Flood Control, third paragraph:

RESPONSE TO CoMMENT 11-2

On page 4.9-23 of the Draft EW mitigation measure, M.M. 4-9.13 specifies that any proposed wetland modifications associated with implementation of the Southport Framework Plan is required to be coordinated with the U.S. Corps of Engineer and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to ensure compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 1600 of the CDFG Code.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan II - 35 Final EIR LETTER 12

IMMM ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING

3010 Beacon Blvd. A West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 372-9496 Fax: (916) 372-0430 April 25, 1994

Ms. Beth Tincher City of West Sacramento Community Development Department P.O. Box 219 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, CA 95691

Re: Southport Framework Plan Master Development Plan (SCH # 91063032)

Dear Ms. Tincher:

On behalf of the Port of Sacramento, please consider this comment on the Southport Framework Plan Draft EIR

Northeast Ouadrant (4.1-14

For Port owned property of approximately 92 acres in the Northeast Quadrant, the General Plan designation and zoning should not be changed at the time the Southport Framework Plan is adopted. The Port and the City have met and agreed to a conceptual land use plan (see exhibits 1 and 2) for the Port property.

The current RMU General Plan designation and Waterfront zoning allow for uses being proposed and do not limit the flexibility of the City and Port. If adopted now, any deviation from the proposed zoning in the Framework Plan will require General Plan amendments or 12-1 rezoning, an unnecessary time consuming level of planning and expense for both the Port and City. It has been clearly demonstrated that the Port and City have the same vision for the property. When further study and design have been completed, final entitlements may be granted with no need for General Plan amendment or rezoning. General Plan amendments and rezoning will not facilitate proper planning, but will impede the development of this valuable community resource.

Sincerely,

Rose Marie Moore Principal WRIrI'EN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

LETTER 12. RMM Environmental Planning for the Port of Sacramento, Rose Marie Moore, Principal April 25, 1994

The Draft EIR has been prepared to address the environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Draft Southport Framework Plan including proposed land uses. The comment is questioning the appropriateness of a proposed land use designation and implementation procedures. Although it is recognized that the Port and the City must continue with cooperative efforts regarding the Port property, these comments are not related to the analysis of environmental impacts, but rather relate to the preparation of the Framework Plan.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 36 Final EIR Mmy

Attn Beth Tincher 25 April 94 Senior Planner Community Development Department 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, CA 95691

RE: SOUTHPORT FRAMEWORK PLAN

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR

Dear Ms. Tincher,

As residents of the Southport area for ten years now we have two comments to offer for your consideration regarding the above.

We particularly like the "Alternate B - Three Nest" plan for this area. We are in favor of Alternate B because it would preserve I and maintain some Swainson's hawk sites and nestings; and would 13-1 additionally provide for foraging area for the Swainson's hawk.

Our second comment is in regards to the proposed sewer treatment plant. Locating the proposed sewer treatment plant in the southern .part of the planned area probably makes sense for flow directions. However our concern is that the prevailing winds are primarily southwest in this area, and that this fact may not have been considered thus far. This puts the proposed sewer treatment 13-2 plant up wind of the entire framework plan area. This could I quite likely create problems for the residential population in the framework plan. I Thank you for the opportunity to comment during this public review period. We would hope that you give our comments consideration as to the effects they will create for the future of the Southport area. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

LETTER 13. Mike and Jude Lee, 3600 Seymour Avenue, West Sacramento, California April 25, 1994 fti i *w

Comment regarding support for Alternative B is noted.

iK1

Prevailing wind direction is not normally a critical siting criterion for sewage treatment plants, since the greatest odor potential is during light or calm wind conditions when the dilution of odorous substances is minimized. Odorous substances are usually rapidly diluted by mixing during prevailing wind conditions

All sewage treatment plants are potential sources of odors, although modern plant designs and treatment methods have greatly reduced odor sources The greatest potential for adverse impacts on surrounding land uses is at night, when winds are light or calm and atmospheric stability is high. Under these conditions the area affected by the odors is not related to the prevailing wind direction

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan [I -37 Final EIR We Gary and Shelly Fredericksen purchased our property at 3650 Antioch Avenue in West Sacramento in December of 1990. We knew at the time of purchase tht our 4.5 acre parcel (parcel number 046-280-081) was not splitable into two buildable parcels 14-11 per the City of West Sacramento. However, we would not object to a proposal that would allow us to split our 4.5 acre parcel into 2 separate parcels as long as a 1 acre parcel meeting our specifications remains for the construction of our home, I

A . . 041-- G~- I-/- C?~ G 1ry S. edericksen Date

Fredericksen Date LETTER 14. Gary and Shelly Fredericksen, 3650 Antioch Ave., West Sacramento California May 4, 1994

RESPONSE TO COMMENT 14-1

The commentor's property (APN 046-280-081) is currently designated as PR (Planned Residential) by the existing General Plan. This designation requires that a Master Plan be prepared for future development. The Southport Framework Plan proposes a redesignation which allows a parcel size of 2.5. This comment letter pertains to the land use designations contained in the Framework Plan and not to environmental impacts addressed by the Draft EIR.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11-38 Final EIR LETFrER 15

It's easy to take a pencil and look at a map and say everything this side is R.E.and everything that side is R.R. Remember everything you designated R.R. on the north of Davis road is no different than the southside of Davis Road. As you will see on the map , if you take a straight line 15-1 and keep the properties bordering Davis road on the south you will have a more logical understanding of the boundary and be fair to the property owners of the of Davis road. Please take time to lookat the area and the pictures of the homes before you make a final judgement LETI'ER 15. Louis J. Arges, Davis Road, West Sacramento, California Undated.

Comment noted. The comment pertains to the merits of the proposed land use designations contained in the Southport Framework Plan, and states an objection to the proposed land use designation of RE (Rural Estates) for an area south of Davis Road, As this is an issue directly related to the contents of the Framework Plan and does not address a specific environmental issue, an environmental response is not warranted or possible. Please refer to Section 4.1 of the Draft EIR for a discussion of specific land use impacts associated with the Southport Framework Plan.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 39 Final EIR Gary Fredricksen and Shelley Fredricksen purchased one acre from a parcel of 4 1/2 acres with the understanding that they could have a lot split when the final framework plan was adopted and that the 3 1/2 acres remaining would go back to Phillip Arges who could finish the subdivision he had created under the Californian Subdivision code. Under the R.E. zone the city is planning to adopt. Gary won't have the 2 1/2 acres required , and Phillip would have a non-conforming lot. 16-1 How do you get 2 , 2 1/2 acre lots from a 4 1/2 acre parcel. The R.E. zoning for this Davis road parcel is not a proper zoning, and consideration should be made to keep it into the R.R. zoning. 2 1/2 and 5 acre lots would be proper on largeopen acreages.

signed WRrrrEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

LETTER 16. Louis J. Arges, Davis Road, West Sacramento, California Undated.

4 js

Comment noted. Please see Response to Comment 15-1.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11 - 40 Final EIR LETTER 17

We the Undersigned property owners facing Davis Road from Antioch ave. to Jefferson Blvd. wish to go on the record that we purchased our properties with the R.S. zoning when we were in the county which allowed half acre homesites. We wish to keep our properties in the half acre zoning 171 as we don't believe that anyone purchasing 2 1/2 acre lots would want to build a $250,000.00 to $400,000.00 estate home next to a half adre existing older home. Which also would create a hardship on existing properties.

NAME PARCEL ADDRESS o/oIS/ c~73SE)ow~ einl je3 7/- 6: -5 ,3 7 0- E0\JE1 R QLLJ 0 /(( L5 TbAhs Rs. 37f-37

ivc FRzic R8C JerFe&s,iv_ 1 371 , 12 LE LowccL RRicFR P/;/LPARAF Of

OWNER z(U7<1 /J2 Lc6

L C L (L

/ ?W( WRITFEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES

LErFER 17. Property Owners, Davis Road, West Sacramento, California Undated.

Comment noted. The undersigned property owners disagree with the proposed land use designations contained in the Southport Framework Plan for an area south of Davis Road Please see Response to Comment 15-1.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 11-41 Final EIR

CHANGES, CORRECTIONS, AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT Effi

IlL SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Edits, additions and deletions to the Draft EIR are summarized below. Changes to the document by the Lead Agency have been made primarily in response to written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, but are also the result of general editorial comments made during further review of the document in order to clarify particular issues and includes changes contained in the errata sheet to the Draft EIR prepared by the City of West Sacramento (March 23, 1994). This summary of changes, or errata, addresses each section of the Draft EIR sequentially. Changes are shown as additions and deletions.

The changes made herein do not result in additional environmental impacts, nor do they alter the conclusions of the previous environmental analysis in any way. jJl:$jit.) IiulSil .i

Page 1. 1, first paragraph:

The purpose of this Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter referred to as the EIR) is to evaluate the environmental impact related to the adoption and implementation of the Southport Framework Plan including any subsequent General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes to create consistency between the General Plan, the Southport Framework Plan and zoning The Southport Framework Plan encompasses approximately 7,120 acres within the southern half of the City of West Sacramento. The Framework Plan is a policy document that will serve as an extension of the General Plan and will provide an instrument of implementation for the various development programs included within its borders As such, the information included in the General Plan EIR, which was reviewed and certified in May, 1990, is to be included in this document by reference. Copies of the General Plan EIR can be viewed or purchased form the City of West Sacramento Community Development Department, 1951 South River Road, West Sacramento.

4.1 LAND USE

Page 4.1-8, Proposed Development Projects, second paragraph:

. Six additional projects have also been proposed for development within the Southport Project Area These are Gainsborough/Bayside, Port of Sacramento Expansion, Newport Lakes, Southport Gateway, Rivermont and Southport 90. The Port of Sacramento Expansion has obtained approval of a General Plan Amendment and a Rezone, the others These-pfejeets have not received any level of development approval.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 111 - 2 Final EIR CHANGES, CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS To THE DRAFT D4ij

Page 4.1-10, Table 4.1-3

The Draft EIR will be amended to revise the title of Table 4.1-3 "Approved and Proposed Development Within the Southport Project Area ". Please see revised table attached.

Page 4.1-15, Figure 4.1-5

The Draft EIR will be amended to correct Figure 4.1-5 to include the "NP Neighborhood Park" designation in the legend. Please see revised figure attached.

Page 4.1-18, Figure 4.1-6

The Draft EIR will be amended to correct Figure 4.1-6 to include an existing marina and rail line and to include the "NP Neighborhood Park" designation in the legend Please see revised figure attached.

Page 4.1-21, Figure 4.1-7

The Draft EIR will be amended to correct Figure 4.1-7 to include an existing marina and rail line and to include the "NP Neighborhood Park" designation in the legend. Please see revised figure attached,

Page 4.2-5, Figure 4.2-1

The Draft EIR will be amended to revise the legend on Figure 4.2-1 to eliminate the "Ss Sycamore Silty Clay Loam " designation.

Page 4,2-10, last paragraph:

The Delta Protection Commission is a State agency created under legislation sponsored by Senator Patrick Johnston. This commission was established due to concerns that were being raised in the Delta over the increasing pressures of residential, residential/recreation, and commercial industrial development in the Delta area, an area of statewide agricultural significance. The Commission was formed due to the concerns that have been raised in the Delta over the increasing pressures of residential, residential/recreation, and commercial industrial uses

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan III - 3 Final EIR CHANGES, Ci) iAND zADDITIONS DRAff * I

which could continue to encroach into the Delta, an area of statewide agricultural significance. Thousands of acres of agricultural lands in the east, south, and southwest portions of the legal Delta have been developed for these uses, or are proposed for such development. The jurisdiction of the Commission includes portions offive counties including Solano, Yolo, Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Contra Costa counties. The planning jurisdiction excludes all cities, unincorporated communities designatedfor residential and commercial uses, and spheres of influences of cities. Thus, the Delta Protection Agency would not have jurisdictional review over this particular project. However, impacts to agricultural lands is discussed in the Impacts Analysis on page 4.2-12 of this document.

* wi s) i'iW&I liv * 1I

The discussion on erosion caused by wave action on unprotected banks on page 4.3-7 paragraph two, will be moved to page 4.3-6 following the paragraph subtitled 'Lateral Spreading".

4.4 - DRAINAGE, HYDROLOGY AND FLOODING

,The R.D. 900 Main Drainage Canal and lateral canals are man-made unlined canals with relatively flat invert elevations of approximately 0.0 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum).

Page 4.4-1, Flooding and Flood Control, second paragraph:

Page 4.4-1, Flooding and Flood Control, third paragraph--

. . The City anticipates by the Spring 1994 approval of the protected designation and certification of the levees by FEMA. FEMA has advised the City that new designations and maps will become effective January 1, 1995. Most of Southport will be located within

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan Ill-4 Final EIR CHANGES, CORRECTIONS Am) ADDITIONS TO THF, DRAFr EIR

zone X, an area classified outside the 100 year floodplain.

Page 4.4-12, S.C.A, 42:

. .The improvements to the system shall be subject to the approval of the City, the appropriate reclamation district, and by Caltrans should their facilities be affected.

Page 4.4-2, insert new exhibit:

An exhibit (Figure 4.4-1) will be added to the Draft EIR inserted following page 4,4-3 which depicts the location of major drainage facilities in the project area.

Page 4.5-8, Regulation and Presence of Hazardous Materials, fourth paragraph:

Unocal prepared such a plan in 1988 and submitted a business Emergency Plan and a Risk Management and Prevention Plan for its facility in West Sacramento to the Office of Emergency Services,

F!Iage 4.5-10, Regulation and Presence of Hazardous Materials, third paragrap-ki .If constructed as proposed, this project is anticipated to utilize hazardous materials, such as acids, bases, and organic liquids, in its operations Such materials will be handled in 55 gallon drums, which would reduce the potential for catastrophic releases, and would be subject to regulations contained in an approved Hazardous materials Management Plan (HMMP),,,,.

4.6 TRAFFIc AND CIRCULATION

See revised Table 4,6-1, attached,

Page 4.6-19, second paragraph:

.Another study, referred to as the West Sacramento Traffic Fee Study, was completed to support the City's new development fee ordinance This study examines traffic impact fees which will be set sets traffic fccs for new development to pay for transportation improvements in West Sacramento required to achieve acceptable levels of service through the Year 2015. The City Council has adopted the study and the City Staff is currently preparing an evaluation of recommended fee amounts.....

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 111 - 5 Final EIR CHANGES, CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR

Page 4.6-31, M.M. 4.6-3:

The major cause of the poor levels of service at this intersection is the on-ramp rather than the intersection. In conjunction with the Triangle Project, 5th Street will be extended from West Capitol Avenue to South River Road. The South River Road/U.S. 50 E.B. on-ramp will become the 5th Street/U.S. 50 E.B. ramp.

Page 4-6-32, first paragraph:

The following text has been added for clarification.

Changes to the Project

Two potential modification to the project's land use plan were considered to reduce traffic volumes, and thereby reduce traffic impacts. The first of these two modifications is the elimination of development south of the main drain (this area is referred to as Hoilenback Fa)The pejeeteurently-desigiiates This would eliminate 354 single family dwelling units for this area.

Page 4.6-33, M.M.

4-6-6. This mitigation measure has been expanded upon to reflect potential visual impacts associated with the construction of flyover as traffic mitigation. This discussion is provided in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sec 15126(c), which states that "If a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed." The measure has been modified as follows:

... or construct a fly-over ramp for the east bound to northbound movement. The options would result in LOS C conditions at the intersection. The flyover option, however, may prove to create high profile and visibility. This would be determined, however, at later stages of improvement design and alignment.

The intersection is currently being designed in conjunction with the Palamadessi Bridge,...

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 111 - 6 Final EIR CHANGES, Co1uc11oNs AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFF Effi

Page 4.7-11, second paragraph:

. . . It should also be noted that during the preliminary review and the Notice of Preparation process, the two APCDs were pleased with the proposed development pattern and support the use of a land use design that will internalize trips and incorporate plans for the use of mass transit. The Sacramento Area Air Quality Maintenance Area is currently designated as a "Serious" ozone nonattainment area. However, the EPA is proposing to "bump-up" the Sacramento Area to a "Severe" ozone designation Areas Classified as "Severe" are allowed an additional six years (i e, until 2005) for attainment, but must meet additional Clean Air Act requirements by addressing the following rules in the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP):

New Source Review: The FIP proposes permit requirements to assure that all new and modified major emission increases on a 1 to 1.3 ratio with emission decreases elsewhere in the nonattainment area Currently as a "Serious " area, sources in the Sacramento area emitting more than 50 tons per year must offset emission increase on a 1 to 1.2 ratio.

Employee Commute Option (ECO): The Sacramento FIP proposal includes an ECO measure designed to encourage alternatives to single-occupant commuting This program has two requirements for employers with more than 100 employees at a workstte in the Sacramento area First, the employers will be required to submit certified compliance plans to encourage alternatives to solo-driving for employee commutes. Employers are given flexibility to choose the most effective strategies for their particular employee's working population and worksite

Second, the employers will be required to meet the target average passenger occupancy of 1.38 people per vehicle. This represents an increase of 25% above the current average ridership in this area Good faith efforts will betaken into account for those employers who fail to meet the required target.

The FIP is currently a draft plan which will be reviewed for public comment by the local agencies involved. The Southport Framework Plan has not been evaluated against these new requirements since the "bump-up " designation to "Severe " is only proposed. But, the City and

city Council takes action of the project.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 111 - 7 Final EIR CHANGES, CORRECTIONS A.1 ) Ai)DITIONSTOU:THE $ I 1

Page 4.8.13, insert Impact 4-8-6:

Impact 4-8-6: Implementation of the proposed project will result in exposure of existing and future noise-sensitive land uses to rail noise.

Implementation of the proposed project will result in exposure of future noise sensitive uses to existing rail noise. Proposed uses along the Yolo Shortline rail line are located in an area which has been designated as having a potential noise level of 101 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the rail line, this noise level is realized when the train blows its horn at the crossroads. Since trains only travel to Clarksburg once a week, the horn noise is not evident in the measurements. The noise will be evident to surrounding properties which should be designated to minimize its intrusion.

There are currently no General Plan policies that directly relate to this issue.. However, these noise sources are "one time or point noise sources ". they occur very infrequently and only when a train is blowing its horn, this impact is considered to be less-than-significant and does not require any additional mitigation.

Page 4.8-14, M.M. 4-8-4:

Building construction activities for individual projects within the Southport area shall be restricted.,,.,

4.9 - BIoTic RESOURCES

Page 4.9-25, first paragraph:

Direct modifications to levee banks, drainage canals, and seasonal wetlands may be necessary to accommodate roadway crossings, flood control improvements, and specific development plans such as the proposed marina and water-related commercial and industrial uses The design of these drainage facilities will take into consideration the requirements for flood control, including the width and depth of canals, as well as the accommodation of sensitive biological habitat.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 111 - 8 Final EIR 5.0 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT

Page 5-13, first paragraph:

. . For this analysis it was assumed that only three projects that are currently approved (Pheasant Hollow, Southport Keys, and Southport Industrial Park and the Port of Sacramento Expansion project) would be developed.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan III - 10 Final EIR CHANGES, CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRArr DIti

Page 4.10-2, Archaeological Resources, second paragraph:

Archaeological resource zones are defined as surveyed lands that are only suspected to contain such resources, while the cultural resource zones are those which are known to contain resources (Figure 4.10-1). The Southport Area Plan prepared by Yolo County indicated that the Southport Industrial Park (SIP) and the Port Expansion site have both been previously surveyed for resources.

4.13 - PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES

Page 4.13-3, Water Transmission Facilities, second paragraph:

... The Northeast Reservoir, located on Williams between 3rd and 4th Streets-qmmL-Ind

5tr~, has an 8 MGD booster pump station ....

Page 4.13 - 10, Mitigation Measures of the EIR:

M.M. 4.13-1-4: Prior to the approval of a tentative map, the City will confirm that the project proposal is consistent with the requirements and water supply assumptions contained in the updated Water Master Plan, or will secure a development agreement with the City for the provision of adequate water supply.

Page 4.13 - 19, MM, Mitigation Measure of the EIR. This measure has been clarified as follows:

MM 13-2-1: The project applicant shall demonstrate that the project will not cause the existing wastewater treatment facility to be unable to adequately treat all chemical constituents

standards.

City of West Sacramento Southport Framework Plan 111 - 9 Final EIR

A N

1 inch= 4,500 feet

U HR \MR 3 - L- MU ., MR HR t \------CP

LR MR LNCL ---- MU/.'MR MU :'NP------J.. / MR .ESLR it MR MR CC f/HR1 '4 -----., - LR\ civic J Pop J MR j NP'S.

RR ,> ES MR LR / HS 1/ MU ,LR,"

LR RR RR

RR HR 1/

Existing Roadways Planned Roadways Land Use Boundary Commercial Uses NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Residential Uses CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL- .5 to 1.0 Units per acre MU MIXED USE LR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 1.1 to 5.0 Units per acre RMU RIVERFRONT MIXED USE MR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 5.1 to 12.0 units per acre Public/Quasi-Public HR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL- 12.11025.0 units per acre POP Public/Quasi-Public NP Neighborhood Park HS High School ES Elementary School CP Community Park OS Open Space

West Sacramento A7 City of Northeast Quadrant Figure 4.1-5 Southport Framework Plan ETR A N

1 inch= 4,500 feet

'I / RR o>...

Legend

Existing Roadways Planned Roadways Land Use Boundary Commercial Uses NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Residential Uses WRC WATER-RELATED COMMERCIAL RE RURAL ESTATES - 2.5 ac. mm , lot size or larger RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL - .5 to 1.0 units per acre PublicIOuasi-Public LR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1.1 to 5.0 units per acre CP Community Park MR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 5.1 to 12.0 units per acre OS Open Space HR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL- 12.1 to 25.0 units per acre NP Neighborhood Park

City of West Sacramento Southeast Quadrant Figure 4.1-6 WIUDAN ASSOQAIES Southport Framework Plan EIR II I A N RR 1 inch = 4,500 feet I cc '

)3 7, GC/AC-1 7/

.7/ 7,

Existing Roadways= Planned Roadways Land Use Boundary Commercial Uses NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Residential Uses GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL RE RURAL ESTATES - 2.5 ac. mm . lot size or larger RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL - .510 1.0 units per acre Public/Quasi-Public LR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 1.1 to 5.0 units per acre POP Public/QuasI-Public MR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 5.1 to 12.0 units per acre NP Neighborhood Park HR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 12.1 to 25.0 units per acre CP Community Park OS Open Space ES Elementary School AC-1 Agricultural

IV City of West Sacramento Southwest Quadrant Figure 4.1-7 WILIDAN A$OCA]ES Southport Framework Plan Effi A P1 Port of Sacramento 1 inch = 4,500 feet

LR 'iii r MRNC BP 0 5 RR .,# / -..i LR ji RR ._4NPi 0/ fI mr-- s 4. L i-i S LR

NP' LR LA '

I / RE

Legend

Existing Roadways Planned Roadways Land Use Boundary Commercial Uses Public/Quasi-Public NC NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL POP Public/Quasi-Public Residential Uses CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL NP Neighborhood Park RE RURAL ESTATES - 2.5 ac. mm . lot size or larger GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL CP Community Park RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL - .5 to 1.0 units per acre BP BUSINESS PARK OS Open Space LR LOW DENS flY RESIDENTIAL - 1.1 to 5.0 units per acre MU MIXED USE MR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 5.1 to 12.0 units per acre Industrial Uses HR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. 12.1 to 25.0 units per acre LI Light Industrial HS High School ES Elementary School HI Heavy Industrial WRI Water-Related Industrial

City of West Sacramento Northwest Quadrant Ii flUDANASSOc1 Southport Framework Plan E Figure 4.1-8 II

Port ot Smacram to Ma Ma / -

La Ma M2L'\ t ¼, Ma canaitt vb Lb t-- \ Thom Rd. 4 --- -- Vb I I, I -'-I. I .. );Sa\ P I < (1 Oa I) '- J tF! Ia U). J( IKj \: ) Ii / Sa /Vb ' I. fn / / --- y Lb' (L _/ I RkI IRk/ I .1k \ / ’_\ Marshall Rd' Oa r

- Ii / I - .jO 1/

Wa _ :T ) V. 4a / Ld Ld, /1 / - %p,\_I( . La

Bevan Rd. \. E" l % . I_li '- I .\ / ----- Lo - / \ / ..-' _s___ - - Lb '/ Sc / Vb Ld ’-- \’b ( .-- . /7 A Maine' 06 Rot N L i inch,00set Sa Legend 9 Sa La Lang Sandy Loam Lb Lang Sandy Loam, Deep cLd)f*/ Ld Lang Silt Loam r'\Rk Ma Made Land I Mk Merritt Silty Clay Loam I City Limits Myers Clay Map. So Ms / Oa Omni Silty Clay Loam Rk Riz Loam Sa Sacramento Silty Clay Loam /bS7 So Sycamore Silt Loam Sa IOfl)iI Te Tyndall Very Fine Sandy Loam 1 Vb Valdez Silt Loam Wa Willows Silty Clay Loam

\' Wb Willows Clay

City of West Sacramento Soli, Characteristks Figure W1IIDANAOCA]tS Southport Framework Plan EIR 44

F. rel (ED I Co (n

Loop

= TRAFFIC SIGNAL .J STOP SIGN

rhr 2. Pr.nrQ AQQnnlntPn Ifl(

Sacrathento 17 City of West Proposed Future Figure C-.24 WII.IDAN ASSOCIATES Southport Framework Plan EIR Intersection Configurations ENGNEEPS&PLANNERS TABLE 4.6-1 Level of Service Definitions for Signalized Intersections

A Free Flow/Insignificant Delays: No approach phase 0.00 - 0.59 . < 5.0 is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits through more than one red indication; excellent traffic operation.

B Stable Operation/Minimum Delays: An occasional 0.60 - 0.69 5.1 - 15.0 approach phase is fully utilized; platoons of vehicles are formed; very good traffic operation.

C Stable Operation/Acceptable Delays: Major approach 0.70 - 0.79 15,1 - 25.0 phase may become fully utilized; driver may occasionally have to wait through more than one indication; good traffic operation.

D Approaching Unstable/Tolerable Delays: Queues 0.80-0.89 25.1 - 40.0 may develop but dissipate rapidly without excessive delays; fair traffic operation.

E Unstable Operation/Significant Delays: Volumes at 0.90-0.99 40.1 - 60.0 or near capacity; vehicles may wait through several signal cycles, long queues form upstream from intersection; poor traffic operation.

F Forced Flow/Excessive Delays: Represents jammed 1.00 - over > 60.0 conditions; intersection operates below capacity with low volumes; queues may block upstream intersections.

Source: 1980 Transportation Research Board Circular 212 TABLE 4.1-3 Approved and Proposed. Development Within.. The Southport Project Area

1: :.:;

1. Southport Keys 230 98.56 acres low-density residential General Plan Amendment, Received map, zoning, and (S. of Bevan Rd., W. of 73.27 acres medium-density resid. zoning, and Tentative Map GPA approval. Development Dist, 900 drainage canal) (1,015 residential lots) approved, agreement is not approved. 10.4 acres Parks Contingent upon adequate 25.93 acres School/Open Space access. 19.7 acres roads

2. Southport 90 90 471 single-family units No approvals at this time. Tentative maps being prepared.

3. Gainsborough/Bayside 310 1,263 single-family units EIR completed, not certified. Project redesign pending. (N. of Marshall Rd., W. of 108 multi-family units Requires GPA, Rezoning, and Dist. 900 drainage canal) Tentative Map.

4. Rivermont 30 120 single family units Filed "zoning administrator request for action" in 1992.

5. Southport Industrial Park 678 126 acres light industrial Final EIR completed 6/83; Land will be released in (Northwest corner of 263 acres heavy industrial GPA and Rezone approved, phases of 150 to 250 acres. Southport, along Deep 240 acres water-related industrial Maps not yet submitted- Land will be sold to Water Ship Channel) 15 acres commercial Development agreement was developers or owner/users. (250 acres Of heavy industrial and approved in September 1989. The original developers plan light industrial uses are in the process to build 200,000 to 500,000 of being rezoned to business park sq. ft. of spec. space. uses, including warehouse Development will include the distribution and office). MacMillan Bloedel Paper Recycling Facility, at the northeast corner of the Park. Development contingent upon adequate access. 6. Port of Sacramento 504 275 Ac Waterfront Industrial Rezoning and GPA No development will take (South of Deep Water 98 Ac Business Park application approved; maps place until bridges and sewer Ship Channel turning 72 Ac Open Space have not been submitted to system financing mechanisms basin) 38 Ac Parks date, are finalized. Any 21 Ac Light Industrial development would promote 4 Ac Public/Quasi-Public long-term goals to support industrial and transportation of cargo by water uses.

7. Pheasant Hollow 32 93 residential lots Tentative Map approval. Construction to begin 1996, (Higgins Rd. & Jefferson 8.5 acres commercial with full build-out within 18- Blvd. 36 months. Commercial space will provide neighborhood shopping. Development contingent upon adequate access.

8. Southport Gateway 76.3 96 low-density units Development Plan Submitted Tentative Map application to 237 medium-density units be submitted January 1994. 9. Newport Lakes 270 2,414 residential units Environmental review 649 single-family incomplete. 565 multi-family 1,200 mixed-use units 11.2 acres community commercial

Source: City of West Sacramento, and Wilidan Associates TABLE 4.1-4 Southport Total Build-out Calculations

Areag ...... ...1i3hsg Commerdal/Industritl

('P Designation and Apptnvd Proposed Total Existln Pioposd Total Fiustmg Ptoposed Total Density Acres Acres Acres Units Units Units Sq. Ft Sq. Ft Sq. Ft Residential ____ AC-i 1 2 551.2 0 110 110 RE 09 650.9 0 260 260 RR 9.1 3986 96 375 471 LR =299.4 1,402.22.2 1,691.6 1,351 5,609 6,960 MR 6.2 539.8 169 3,263 3,432 HR 12.5 212.5 1 :103 1 3,825 3,928 1 tz LT I 43 5 1 Commercial 871,200 871,200 NC/CC 80.0 80.0 144,401 144,401 GC 22 1 21.1 31,363 \VRC 3.6 3.6 31,363 2,114,402 O/BP 1618 161.8 2,114,402 455,202 455,202 MV 95.0 95.0 . 399 399 209 209 217,800 217,800 RMU 1 49.8 49.8 1 , 834,16$

Industrial 2,305,195 2,305,195 LI 151.2 151.2 4,249,278 4,249,278 HI 390.2 390.2 1 1,105,553 1,105,553 WRI 126.? 126.9 I, Total i68) 6 3 660,026 7j660,026

PQP (Schools) - - 166.0 166.0 PQP (Other) 90.1 90.1 Civic 21,5 21.5 RI' (Golf) RP (Parks) 293.1 293.1 OS 507.2 507.2 AG 0.0 Streets & Railroad 602.4 602.4 Sub -Total 1 794 8 TotaL 4923 6627.' ://i1kj 15.769 . .. 00 .11.494.394 ., 11,494,194 Source: Southport Framework Implementation Plan, August 1992