Divisions Department of Administrative Services Community Development Building Permits & Inspection Code Enforcement Michael J. Penrose, County Engineering Acting Director Economic Development & Marketing Planning & Environmental Review
Negative Declaration
Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 6, Sections 15070 and 15071 of the California Code of Regulations and pursuant to the Procedures for Preparation and Processing of Environmental Documents adopted by the County of Sacramento pursuant to Sacramento County Ordinance No. SCC-116, the Environmental Coordinator of Sacramento County, State of California, does prepare, make, declare, publish, and cause to be filed with the County Clerk of Sacramento County, State of California, this Negative Declaration re: The Project described as follows:
1. Control Number: PLNP2017-00131 2. Title and Short Description of Project: Point Ranch A Parcel Map to divide approximately 294 acres into three lots: Lot 1: 98.6 acres, Lot 2: 98.0 acres, and Lot 3: 97.8 acres in the AG-80 (Agriculture 80 acre minimum) and Delta Waterways zone districts. A Design Review to comply with the Sacramento County Zoning Code Section 6.3.2.A. Design Review 3. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 156-0010-053 4. Location of Project: The project site is located at the northeast corner of the Isleton Road/Andrus Island Road intersection in the Delta, Walnut Grove community. 5. Project Applicant: Varney Land Survey’s 6. Said project will not have a significant effect on the environment for the following reasons: a. It will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b. It will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. c. It will not have impacts, which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. d. It will not have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. 7. As a result thereof, the preparation of an environmental impact report pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California) is not required. 8. The attached Initial Study has been prepared by the Sacramento County Planning and Environmental Review Division in support of this Negative Declaration. Further information may be obtained by contacting the Planning and Environmental Review Division at 827 Seventh Street, Room 225, Sacramento, California, 95814, or phone (916) 874-6141.
827 7th Street, Room 225 • Sacramento, California 95814 • phone (916) 874-6141 • fax (916) 874-7499 Document Released 7/24/17 www.per.saccounty.net
[Original Signature on File] Todd Smith Interim Environmental Coordinator County of Sacramento, State of California
Point Ranch
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DIVISION INITIAL STUDY
PROJECT INFORMATION
CONTROL NUMBER: PLNP2017-00131
NAME: Point Ranch
LOCATION: The project site is located at the northeast corner of the Isleton Road/Andrus Island Road intersection in the Delta, Walnut Grove community.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 156-0010-053
OWNER:
Point Ranch Partner’s LLC
P.O. Box 248
Walnut Grove, CA, 95690
Contact: Daniel Wilson
APPLICANT: Varney Land Survey’s
2285 66th Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95822
Contact: Richard Varney
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. A Parcel Map to divide approximately 294 acres into three lots: Lot 1: 98.6 acres, Lot 2: 98.0 acres, and Lot 3: 97.8 acres in the AG-80 (Agriculture 80 acre minimum) and Delta Waterways zone districts.
2. A Design Review to comply with the Sacramento County Zoning Code Section 6.3.2.A. Design Review
Initial Study IS-1 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Plate IS-1 Regional Site Location Map
Vicinity Map I-5 Twin Rivers Road
Sacramento River Walnut Grove
Isleton Road
Initial Study IS-2 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Plate IS-2 Zoning Map
Zoning Map
Initial Study IS-3 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Plate IS-3 Vicinity Map 2004 Aerial
Vicinity Map 2004 Aerial
Walnut Grove
Initial Study IS-4 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Plate IS-4 Project Site Aerial
Aerial – Project Site
Initial Study IS-5 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Plate IS-5 Tentative Parcel Map
Initial Study IS-6 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site consists of one parcel approximately 294 acres in size located at the northeast corner of the Isleton Road/Andrus Island Road intersection, less than 100 feet south of the Sacramento River. The project site is bordered on the north by Isleton Road and the Sacramento River; to the south and southwest by Andrus Island Road, the Georgiana Slough, and agricultural lands; to the west by Andrus Island Road, River Road, and the Walnut Grove community; and to the east by agricultural lands. Access to site is from both Isleton Road and Andrus Island Road.
The site is currently under agricultural production with pear and cherry orchards, and grapes. There are five homes, farm-labor housing, barns, and accessory structures located on the property. All of the homes are occupied. The farm-labor housing units are occupied by employees that work on the site. The barns and accessory structures are used in the agricultural operations taking place on the project site.
Topography on the site is generally uniform, with portions of the property at, or below sea level. The Sacramento River is to the north of the project site and the Georgiana Slough and levee border the southerly and southwesterly sides of the site. The project site is considered Prime Farmland, with four soil types, all defined as Prime Farmland soils.
The project site has the following land use designations: General Plan, Agricultural Cropland; and Zoning, AG80 (Agricultural 80 acre minimum lot size) and DW (Delta Waterways). North of the project is the Sacramento River, on the opposite of the river from the project site the parcels are zoned AG20 (20 acre minimum lot size) and AG80. Parcels to the south, southeasterly, and southwesterly (across the Georgiana Slough from the project site) are zoned AG80/DW. Parcels to the east are zoned AG40/DW (40 acre minimum lot size). Parcels to the west, across the Georgiana Slough from the project site, are zoned M-2/DW (Heavy Industrial) and SPA (Special Planning Area Walnut Grove).
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides guidance for assessing the significance of potential environmental impacts. Based on this guidance, Sacramento County has developed an Initial Study Checklist (located at the end of this report). The Checklist identifies a range of potential significant effects by topical area. The topical discussions that follow are provided only when additional analysis beyond the Checklist is warranted.
Initial Study IS-7 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
BACKGROUND
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES This section supplements the Initial Study Checklist by analyzing if the proposed project would:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance or areas containing prime soils to uses not conducive to agricultural production?
• Conflict with any existing Williamson Act contract?
• Introduce incompatible uses in the vicinity of existing agricultural uses?
According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, agricultural impacts may be significant if farmland is converted, there are conflicts with an existing Williamson Act contract, and if incompatible uses are introduced. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965-- commonly referred to as the Williamson Act--enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which are much lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value.
The Sacramento County General Plan Agricultural Element, Amended November 9, 2011 includes goals, objectives, and policies that protect important farmlands from conversion and encroachment, and conserve agricultural resources. Plate IS-6 (Figure 1 of the County General Plan Agricultural Element) identifies prime farmlands and the County Urban Services Boundary (USB).
Initial Study IS-8 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Plate IS-6 Agricultural Lands Sacramento County General Plan – Agricultural Element
Project
Initial Study IS-9 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
General Plan Policy AG-1 states that “The County shall protect prime, statewide importance, unique and local importance farmlands located outside of the USB from urban encroachment.” Another General Plan policy, Policy AG-25 addresses properties and the Williamson Act: “Outside of the Urban Services Boundary, encourage landowners to enter into Williamson Act contracts or, as appropriate, to rescind Notices of Nonrenewal. Provide support to keep property in the Williamson Act by allowing agricultural-friendly land use practices that include additional economic incentives, and support replacing existing Williamson Act contracts with amended contracts that include agricultural-friendly land use practices.”
There is an active Williamson Act contract (72-AP-104) on the project site and the applicant is not requesting that it be rescinded as part of the proposed land division. The contract was reviewed, and there are no conditions that prohibit the division of the property, provided all County General Plan policies and Zoning Code standards (including the minimum lot size of 80 acres) are complied with.
On February 9, 1972 by Resolution 72-AP-104, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors established an Agricultural Preserve within Sacramento County that included the project site. The preserve was reviewed, and there are no conditions that prohibit the division of the property, provided all County General Plan policies and Zoning Code standards (including the minimum lot size of 80 acres) are complied with.
The project site is located outside of the County’s USB, is designated as prime farmland in the County’s General Plan, and is within a County Agricultural Preserve. There is an active Williamson Act Contract on the property. The proposed project includes the continuation of the agricultural uses of pear and cherry orchards, and grapes; and the retention of the existing homes and structures on the property. Advisory conditions will be included noting that the land use designations and agricultural preserve will continue for the three new lots; and that the Williamson Act Contract will also be applicable to the three new lots; therefore, the impacts to agricultural resources are less than significant.
AESTHETICS This section supplements the Initial Study Checklist by analyzing if the proposed project would: • Substantially alter existing viewsheds such as scenic highways, corridors or vistas? • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, aesthetic impacts may be significant if a project will alter viewsheds such as scenic highways, degrade the visual quality of the site or its surroundings, or create a new source of substantial light, glare, or shadow that
Initial Study IS-10 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch would result in safety hazards (i.e. create traffic distractions), or adversely affect day or nighttime views. Plate IS-5 depicts the proposed tentative parcel map, identifying the location of the new property boundaries for the three proposed new lots. Plate IS-3 is an aerial photograph from 2004 (this is the most current aerial of the project site located in the County’s system) which includes the project site, surrounding agricultural lands, the Sacramento River, the Georgiana Slough, and the Walnut Grove community. Scenic Highways are identified in the May 28, 2014 Amended Sacramento County General Plan Circulation Element. The Circulation Element includes the following Scenic Highways Goal: “To preserve and enhance the aesthetic quality of scenic roads.” The objective is to strengthen the provisions of the scenic corridor regulations so as to further protect the aesthetic values of the County’s freeways and scenic roads. General Plan Circulation Element Figure 3 identifies Highway 160 as an “Officially Designated State Scenic Highway” and an “Officially Designated County Scenic Highway.” Highway 160 is also known as “River Road” and is described in the Circulation Element as follows: “The River Road runs on top of levees along the Sacramento River. It provides a view of the river on one side and extensive rich farmland on the other. It runs through the historic and quaint communities of Locke and Walnut Grove and provides access to recreational areas of the Delta. This is an outstandingly scenic road and is worthy of its designation as an Official State Scenic Highway.” A portion of Isleton Road from Isleton Bridge to State Route 160 at Paintersville Bridge is also designated as a County Scenic Highway. The project site has frontage along that portion of Isleton Road designated as a County Scenic Highway. The Circulation Element also specifically recognizes the streams, sloughs, and channels of the Delta as follows: “A number of County roads run on the crowns of levees along the rivers and sloughs of the Delta. These are narrow roads which give a near view of the water and far views of fields on both sides. The roads are used to give access to the Delta, including recreational access. Like the River Road, these roads are protected by the General Plan designation of Permanent Agriculture and by agricultural zoning. They are also protected by scenic corridor sign controls.” The project site has frontage along that portion of Isleton Road designated as being protected by scenic corridor sign controls. In addition to designating roadways as scenic corridors the County General Plan also includes the following: “In addition, the Sacramento and American Rivers are protected within Sacramento County by scenic corridors extending 500 feet to each side of the river, as measured from the middle of the channel or by a minimum of a corridor 300 feet from the edge of the river.” The northerly boundary of the project site is separated from the Sacramento River by Isleton Road, and the project site is less than 90 feet from the edge of the river. The project consists of the division of land and retention of existing structures. There are no new businesses, structures, or signs proposed with the land division request. The existing agricultural uses of pear and cherry orchards, and grapes are proposed to continue. The Williamson Act Contract and the County’s Agricultural Preservation
Initial Study IS-11 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
designation are both proposed to continue on the project site; therefore, the impacts to scenic corridors are less than significant.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section supplements the Initial Study Checklist by analyzing if the proposed project would:
• Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area and/or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? • Develop within a 100-year floodplain as mapped on a federal Flood Insurance Rate Map or within a local flood hazard area? • Place structures that would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year floodplain? • Expose people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? • Create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems? • Create substantial sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade ground or surface water quality?
FLOODPLAIN The project site is located in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Zone AE. The application is a request to divide the property into three lots. At this time it does not include the construction of any structures. Agricultural operations are proposed to continue on all three of the new lots. The existing homes, barns, farm- worker housing, and accessory structures are all proposed to remain. There are no outstanding code enforcement or building violations on the project site. Any expansion of the existing buildings and/or a proposal for construction of any new buildings would require compliance with both the Sacramento County and FEMA requirements.
WATER QUALITY
CONSTRUCTION WATER QUALITY: EROSION AND GRADING Construction on undeveloped land exposes bare soil, which can be mobilized by rain or wind and displaced into waterways or become an air pollutant. Construction equipment can also track mud and dirt onto roadways, where rains will wash the sediment into storm drains and thence into surface waters. After construction is complete, various other pollutants generated by site use can also be washed into local waterways. These pollutants include; but are not limited to: vehicle fluids, heavy metals deposited by vehicles, and pesticides or fertilizers used in landscaping.
Initial Study IS-12 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Sacramento County has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Stormwater Permit issued by Regional Water Board. The Municipal Stormwater Permit requires the County to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable and to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges. The County complies with this permit in part by developing and enforcing ordinances and requirements to reduce the discharge of sediments and other pollutants in runoff from newly developing and redeveloping areas of the County.
The County has established a Stormwater Ordinance (Sacramento County Code 15.12). The Stormwater Ordinance prohibits the discharge of unauthorized non- stormwater to the County’s stormwater conveyance system and local creeks. It applies to all private and public projects in the County, regardless of size or land use type. In addition, Sacramento County Code 16.44 (Land Grading and Erosion Control) requires private construction sites disturbing one or more acres or moving 350 cubic yards or more of earthen material to obtain a grading permit.
To obtain a grading permit, project proponents must prepare and submit for approval an Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Plan describing erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) that will be implemented during construction to prevent sediment from leaving the site and entering the County’s storm drain system or local receiving waters. Construction projects not subject to SCC 16.44 are subject to the Stormwater Ordinance (SCC 15.12) described above.
In addition to complying with the County’s ordinances and requirements, construction sites disturbing one or more acres are required to comply with the State’s General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities (CGP). CGP coverage is issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/construction.shtml and enforced by the Regional Water Board. Coverage is obtained by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the State Board prior to construction and verified by receiving a WDID#. The CGP requires preparation and implementation of a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that must be kept on site at all times for review by the State inspector.
Applicable projects applying for a County grading permit must show proof that a WDID # has been obtained and must submit a copy of the SWPPP. Although the County has no enforcement authority related to the CGP, the County does have the authority to ensure sediment/pollutants are not discharged and is required by its Municipal Stormwater Permit to verify that SWPPPs include six minimum components.
The project must include an effective combination of erosion, sediment and other pollution control BMPs in compliance with the County ordinances and the State’s CGP.
Erosion controls should always be the first line of defense, to keep soil from being mobilized in wind and water. Examples include stabilized construction entrances, tackified mulch, 3-step hydroseeding, spray-on soil stabilizers and anchored blankets. Sediment controls are the second line of defense; they help to filter sediment out of
Initial Study IS-13 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
runoff before it reaches the storm drains and local waterways. Examples include rock bags to protect storm drain inlets, staked or weighted straw wattles/fiber rolls, and silt fences.
In addition to erosion and sediment controls, the project must have BMPs in place to keep other construction-related wastes and pollutants out of the storm drains. Such practices include, but are not limited to: filtering water from dewatering operations, providing proper washout areas for concrete trucks and stucco/paint contractors, containing wastes, managing portable toilets properly, and dry sweeping instead of washing down dirty pavement.
It is the responsibility of the project proponent to verify that the proposed BMPs for the project are appropriate for the unique site conditions, including topography, soil type and anticipated volumes of water entering and leaving the site during the construction phase. In particular, the project proponent should check for the presence of colloidal clay soils on the site. Experience has shown that these soils do not settle out with conventional sedimentation and filtration BMPs. The project proponent may wish to conduct settling column tests in addition to other soils testing on the site, to ascertain whether conventional BMPs will work for the project.
If sediment-laden or otherwise polluted runoff discharges from the construction site are found to impact the County’s storm drain system and/or Waters of the State, the property owner will be subject to enforcement action and possible fines by the County and the Regional Water Board.
Project compliance with requirements outlined above, as administered by the County and the Regional Water Board will ensure that project-related erosion and pollution impacts are less than significant.
OPERATION: STORMWATER RUNOFF Development and urbanization can increase pollutant loads, temperature, volume and discharge velocity of runoff over the predevelopment condition. The increased volume, increased velocity, and discharge duration of stormwater runoff from developed areas has the potential to greatly accelerate downstream erosion and impair stream habitat in natural drainage systems. Studies have demonstrated a direct correlation between the degree of imperviousness of an area and the degradation of its receiving waters. These impacts must be mitigated by requiring appropriate runoff reduction and pollution prevention controls to minimize runoff and keep runoff clean for the life of the project.
The County requires that projects include source and/or treatment control measures on selected new development and redevelopment projects. Source control BMPs are intended to keep pollutants from contacting site runoff. Examples include “No Dumping- Drains to Creek/River” stencils/stamps on storm drain inlets to educate the public, and providing roofs over areas likely to contain pollutants, so that rainfall does not contact the pollutants. Treatment control measures are intended to remove pollutants that have already been mobilized in runoff.
Initial Study IS-14 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Examples include vegetated swales and water quality detention basins. These facilities slow water down and allow sediments and pollutants to settle out prior to discharge to receiving waters. Additionally, vegetated facilities provide filtration and pollutant uptake/adsorption. The project proponent should consider the use of “low impact development” techniques to reduce the amount of imperviousness on the site, since this will reduce the volume of runoff and therefore will reduce the size/cost of stormwater quality treatment required. Examples of low impact development techniques include pervious pavement and bioretention facilities.
The County requires developers to utilize the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento and South Placer Regions, 2007 (Design Manual) in selecting and designing post-construction facilities to treat runoff from the project. A post construction design regulation was approved by the Municipal Services Agency Administrator on May 18th 2006. This regulation defines the development standards that the County is implementing and is reflected in the Design Manual. Treatment control measures are required on new development and redevelopment projects that meet or surpass the thresholds defined in Table 3-2 of the Design Manual.
Updates and background on the County’s requirements for post-construction stormwater quality treatment controls, along with several downloadable publications, can be found at the following websites: http://www.waterresources.saccounty.net/stormwater/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.beriverfriendly.net/Newdevelopment/
The final selection and design of post-construction stormwater quality control measures is subject to the approval of the County Department of Water Resources; therefore, they should be contacted as early as possible in the design process for guidance. Project compliance with requirements outlined above will ensure that project-related stormwater pollution impacts are less than significant.
CULTURAL RESOURCES This section supplements the Initial Study Checklist by analyzing if the proposed project would: • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource? • Have a substantial adverse effect on an archaeological resource? • Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? According to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, an impact to cultural resources may be significant if it causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource or has a substantial adverse effect on an archaeological resource. The Sacramento County General Plan Conservation Element includes the following goal:
Initial Study IS-15 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Promote the inventory, protection and interpretation of the cultural heritage of Sacramento County, including historical and archaeological settings, sites, buildings, features, artifacts and/or areas of ethnic historical, religious or socio-economical importance. Promote the inventory, protection and interpretation of the cultural heritage of Sacramento County, including historical and archaeological settings, sites, buildings, features, artifacts and/or areas of ethnic historical, religious or socio- economical importance.
Although no obvious prehistoric, historic, or cultural resources will be affected by this project, a condition of approval has been added to this project to protect any subsurface or previously undiscovered cultural resources that may be obscured from view due to natural reburial processes. With the condition, impacts to potentially significant historical, cultural, and archaeological resources are considered less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURE There are NO Mitigation Measures required for this proposed project. Recommended conditions of approval will address continuation of the Williamson Act Contract, continuation of the Sacramento County Agricultural Preserve, Scenic Corridors, Hydrology/Water Quality, and Cultural Resources.
Initial Study IS-16 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) provides guidance for assessing the significance of potential environmental impacts. Based on this guidance, Sacramento County has developed the following Initial Study Checklist. The Checklist identifies a range of potential significant effects by topical area. The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist are related to impacts as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act as follows:
1 Potentially Significant indicates there is substantial evidence that an effect MAY be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant” entries an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. Further research of a potentially significant impact may reveal that the impact is actually less than significant or less than significant with mitigation.
2 Less than Significant with Mitigation applies where an impact could be significant but specific mitigation has been identified that reduces the impact to a less than significant level.
3 Less than Significant or No Impact indicates that either a project will have an impact but the impact is considered minor or that a project does not impact the particular resource.
Initial Study IS-17 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Potentially Less Than Less Than Comments Significant Significant Significant with or No Mitigation Impact
1. LAND USE - Would the project: a. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, X The project is consistent with environmental policies of the Sacramento policy, or regulation of an agency with County General Plan and Sacramento County Zoning Code. jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to a general plan, specific plan or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b. Physically disrupt or divide an established X The project will not create physical barriers that substantially limit community? movement within or through the community.
2. POPULATION/HOUSING - Would the project: a. Induce substantial unplanned population X The project will neither directly nor indirectly induce substantial growth in an area either directly (e.g., by unplanned population growth; the proposal is consistent with existing proposing new homes and businesses) or land use designations. indirectly (e.g., through extension of infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial amounts of existing X The project will not result in the removal of existing housing, and thus housing, necessitating the construction of will not displace substantial amounts of existing housing. replacement housing elsewhere? 3. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, X The project site is designated as Prime Farmland, on the current Farmland of Statewide Importance or areas Sacramento County Important Farmland Map published by the containing prime soils to uses not conducive to California Department of Conservation. The site does contain prime agricultural production? soils. The project is a land division and does not include any development proposals for the new lots. See the Agricultural Resources section of this document for an expanded discussion.
Initial Study IS-18 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Potentially Less Than Less Than Comments Significant Significant Significant with or No Mitigation Impact b. Conflict with any existing Williamson Act X There is a Williamson Act contract in effect for the project site. The contract? contract status is Active. The project does not conflict with the provisions of the Williamson Act. See the Agricultural Resources section of this document for an expanded discussion. c. Introduce incompatible uses in the vicinity of X The project site and surrounding properties are in active agricultural existing agricultural uses? use. The project will not substantially interfere with agricultural operations because it is a division of land and does not include any development proposals. See the Agricultural Resources section of this document for an expanded discussion. 4. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a. Substantially alter existing viewsheds such as X The project does occur in the vicinity of scenic corridors and a scenic scenic highways, corridors or vistas? sign corridor. See the Aesthetics section of this document for an expanded discussion. b. Substantially degrade the existing visual X The project is a land division that does not include any development character or quality of the site and its proposals. See the Aesthetics section of this document for an surroundings? expanded discussion. c. Create a new source of substantial light, glare, X The project will not result in a new source of substantial light, glare or or shadow that would result in safety hazards shadow that would result in safety hazards or adversely affect day or or adversely affect day or nighttime views in the nighttime views in the area. area? 5. AIRPORTS - Would the project: a. Result in a safety hazard for people residing or X The project occurs outside of any identified public or private working in the vicinity of an airport/airstrip? airport/airstrip safety zones. b. Expose people residing or working in the X The project occurs outside of any identified public or private project area to aircraft noise levels in excess of airport/airstrip noise zones or contours. applicable standards? c. Result in a substantial adverse effect upon the X The project does not affect navigable airspace. safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft?
Initial Study IS-19 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Potentially Less Than Less Than Comments Significant Significant Significant with or No Mitigation Impact d. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, X The project does not involve or affect air traffic movement. including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 6. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project: a. Have an adequate water supply for full buildout X The project will not result in increased demand for water supply. of the project? b. Have adequate wastewater treatment and The project will not require wastewater services. disposal facilities for full buildout of the project? c. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted X The Kiefer Landfill has capacity to accommodate solid waste until the capacity to accommodate the project’s solid year 2030. waste disposal needs? d. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts The project will not require construction or expansion of new water associated with the construction of new water X supply, wastewater treatment, or wastewater disposal facilities. supply or wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or expansion of existing facilities? e. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts X The land division would not require the addition of new stormwater associated with the provision of storm water drainage facilities. drainage facilities? f. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts X The project will not require electric or natural gas service. associated with the provision of electric or natural gas service? g. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts X The project would not incrementally increase demand for emergency associated with the provision of emergency services, and would not cause substantial adverse physical impacts as services? a result of providing adequate service. h. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts X The project will not require the use of public school services. associated with the provision of public school services?
Initial Study IS-20 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Potentially Less Than Less Than Comments Significant Significant Significant with or No Mitigation Impact i. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts X The project will not require park and recreation services. associated with the provision of park and recreation services? 7. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a. Result in a substantial increase in vehicle trips X The project will not increase vehicle trips. that would exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the County? b. Result in a substantial adverse impact to X No changes to existing access and/or circulation patterns would occur access and/or circulation? as a result of the project. c. Result in a substantial adverse impact to public X No changes to existing access and/or circulation patterns would occur safety on area roadways? as a result of the project; therefore no impacts to public safety on area roadways will result. d. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or X The project does not conflict with alternative transportation policies of programs supporting alternative transportation the Sacramento County General Plan, with the Sacramento Regional (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Transit Master Plan, or other adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation.
8. AIR QUALITY - Would the project: a. Result in a cumulatively considerable net X The project does not exceed the screening thresholds established by increase of any criteria pollutant for which the the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District and will project region is in non-attainment under an not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria applicable federal or state ambient air quality pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment. standard? b. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutant X There are no sensitive receptors (i.e., schools, nursing homes, concentrations in excess of standards? hospitals, daycare centers, etc.) adjacent to the project site. See Response 8.a.
Initial Study IS-21 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Potentially Less Than Less Than Comments Significant Significant Significant with or No Mitigation Impact c. Create objectionable odors affecting a X The project will not generate objectionable odors. substantial number of people? 9. NOISE - Would the project: a. Result in exposure of persons to, or generation X The project is not in the vicinity of any uses that generate substantial of, noise levels in excess of standards noise, nor will the completed project generate substantial noise. The established by the local general plan, noise project will not result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise ordinance or applicable standards of other levels in excess of applicable standards. agencies? b. Result in a substantial temporary increase in X The land division will not result in a temporary increase in ambient ambient noise levels in the project vicinity? noise levels in the project vicinity. 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or X The project will not substantially increase water demand over the substantially interfere with groundwater existing use. recharge? b. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern X The project does not involve any modifications that would substantially of the project area and/or increase the rate or alter the existing drainage pattern and or/increase the rate or amount of amount of surface runoff in a manner that surface runoff in a manner that would lead to flooding. would result in flooding on- or off-site? Compliance with applicable requirements of the Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance, Sacramento County Water Agency Code, and Sacramento County Improvement Standards will ensure that impacts are less than significant. See the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this document for an expanded discussion. c. Develop within a 100-year floodplain as X The project is within a 100-year floodplain as mapped on a federal mapped on a federal Flood Insurance Rate Flood Insurance Rate Map (Flood Zone AE). The Sacramento County Map or within a local flood hazard area? Floodplain Management Ordinance, Sacramento County Water Agency Code, and Sacramento County Improvement Standards Includes standards that development projects be located outside or above the floodplain, and will ensure that impacts are less than significant. This project is the division of agricultural land and does not include any development proposals.
Initial Study IS-22 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Potentially Less Than Less Than Comments Significant Significant Significant with or No Mitigation Impact d. Place structures that would impede or redirect X Although the project is within a 100-year floodplain, compliance with flood flows within a 100-year floodplain? the Sacramento County Floodplain Management Ordinance, Sacramento County Water Agency Code, and Sacramento County Improvement Standards will ensure that impacts are less than significant. e. Expose people or structures to a substantial X The project is a division of land; therefore the project itself will not risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, expose people or structures to a substantial risk of loss, injury, or death including flooding as a result of the failure of a involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee levee or dam? or dam. f. Create or contribute runoff that would exceed X The project does not propose any physical changes that would affect the capacity of existing or planned stormwater runoff from the site. drainage systems? g. Create substantial sources of polluted runoff or X Compliance with the Stormwater Ordinance and Land Grading and otherwise substantially degrade ground or Erosion Control Ordinance (Chapters 15.12 and 14.44 of the County surface water quality? Code respectively) will ensure that the project will not create substantial sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade ground or surface water quality. 11. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a. Expose people or structures to substantial risk X Sacramento County is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a Zone. Although there are no known active earthquake faults in the known earthquake fault, as delineated on the project area, the site could be subject to some ground shaking from most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault regional faults. The Uniform Building Code contains applicable Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for construction regulations for earthquake safety that will ensure less than the area or based on other substantial evidence significant impacts. of a known fault?
Initial Study IS-23 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Potentially Less Than Less Than Comments Significant Significant Significant with or No Mitigation Impact b. Result in substantial soil erosion, siltation or X The project is a division of land that does not propose any construction. loss of topsoil? However, future construction of any structures, including agricultural accessory buildings, will be required to be in compliance with the County’s Land Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance, thus reducing the amount of construction site erosion and minimizing water quality degradation by providing stabilization and protection of disturbed areas, and by controlling the runoff of sediment and other pollutants during the course of construction. c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is X The project is not located on an unstable geologic or soil unit. unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, soil expansion, liquefaction or collapse? d. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting X The project is a division of land and does not require the need for the use of septic tanks or alternative septic tanks. However, if a septic tank is needed in the future then any wastewater disposal systems where sewers are proposal for septic systems must comply with the requirements of the not available? County Environmental Management Department, Environmental Health Division, as set forth in Chapter 6.32 of the County Code. Compliance with County standards will ensure impacts are less than significant. e. Result in a substantial loss of an important X The project is not located within an Aggregate Resource Area as mineral resource? identified by the Sacramento County General Plan Land Use Diagram, nor are any important mineral resources known to be located on the project site. f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X No known paleontological resources (e.g. fossil remains) or sites occur paleontological resource or site? at the project location. 12. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
Initial Study IS-24 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Potentially Less Than Less Than Comments Significant Significant Significant with or No Mitigation Impact a. Have a substantial adverse effect on any X No special status species are known to exist on or utilize the project special status species, substantially reduce the site, nor would the project substantially reduce wildlife habitat or habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish species populations. or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, or threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on riparian X No sensitive natural communities occur on the project site, nor is the habitat or other sensitive natural communities? project expected to affect natural communities off-site. c. Have a substantial adverse effect on streams, X No protected surface waters are located on or adjacent to the project wetlands, or other surface waters that are site. protected by federal, state, or local regulations and policies? d. Have a substantial adverse effect on the X The project site is already developed with pear and cherry orchards, movement of any native resident or migratory grapes, homes, barns, and agricultural accessory buildings. Project fish or wildlife species? implementation would not affect native resident or migratory species. e. Adversely affect or result in the removal of X No native and/or landmark trees occur on the project site, nor is it native or landmark trees? anticipated that any native and/or landmark trees would be affected by off-site improvement required as a result of the project. f. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances X The project is consistent with local policies/ordinances protecting protecting biological resources? biological resources. g. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted X There are no known conflicts with any approved plan for the Habitat Conservation Plan or other approved conservation of habitat. local, regional, state or federal plan for the conservation of habitat? 13. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the X No historical resources would be affected by the proposed project. significance of a historical resource? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on an X No known archaeological resources occur on-site. archaeological resource?
Initial Study IS-25 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Potentially Less Than Less Than Comments Significant Significant Significant with or No Mitigation Impact c. Disturb any human remains, including those X No known human remains exist on the project site. Nonetheless, a interred outside of formal cemeteries? condition has been recommended to ensure appropriate treatment should remains be uncovered during project implementation. d. Would the project cause a substantial adverse X No requests for tribal notification or consultation were received from change in the significance of a tribal cultural California Native American Tribes pursuant to Public Resources Code resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21080.3.1(b)(1). Tribal cultural resources were not identified in the 21074? project area. 14. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a. Create a substantial hazard to the public or the X The project does not involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of environment through the routine transport, use, hazardous material. or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Expose the public or the environment to a X The project does not involve the transport, use, and/or disposal of substantial hazard through reasonably hazardous material. foreseeable upset conditions involving the release of hazardous materials? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous X The project site is located within ¼ mile of an existing pre-school and or acutely hazardous materials, substances or within ½ mile of an existing elementary school. The project is a division waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or of land and does not propose any new uses. The existing agricultural proposed school? operations will continue and the existing homes will remain on the property. d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of X The project is not located on a known hazardous materials site. hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, resulting in a substantial hazard to the public or the environment? e. Impair implementation of or physically interfere X The project would not interfere with any known emergency response or with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. emergency evacuation plan?
Initial Study IS-26 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
Potentially Less Than Less Than Comments Significant Significant Significant with or No Mitigation Impact
15. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either X The project is a division of agricultural property and will not have the directly or indirectly, that may have a significant potential to interfere with the County meeting the goals of AB 32 impact on the environment? (reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020); therefore, the climate change impact of the project is considered less than significant.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
LAND USE CONSISTENCY Current Land Use Designation Consistent Not Comments Consistent
General Plan Agricultural Cropland X Community Plan N/A There is no Community Plan for the project area. Land Use Zone AG-80/DW X Agricultural 80 acre minimum Delta Waterways
Initial Study IS-27 PLNP2017-00131 Point Ranch
INITIAL STUDY PREPARERS
Interim Environmental Coordinator: Todd Smith Assistant Environmental Coordinator: Tim Hawkins Section Manager: Tim Hawkins Project Leader: Cindy Schaer Initial Review: Tim Hawkins Office Manager: Louise Rhodes Administrative Support: Justin Maulit
Initial Study IS-28 PLNP2017-00131 P:\2017\PLNP\PLNP2017-00131_PMR Point Ranch parcel map\4. Environmental Documents\Initial Study.docx