Sacramento Municipal Utility District Headquarters Campus Master Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report • April 2018 State Clearinghouse #2017092050
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Headquarters Campus Master Plan
Draft Environmental Impact Report
State Clearinghouse #2017092050
April 2018
Lead Agency: Sacramento Municipal Utility District 6201 S Street, MS B203 Sacramento, CA 95817-1899 or P.O. Box 15830 MS B203 Sacramento, CA 95852-1830 Attn: Rob Ferrera (916) 732-6676 or [email protected]
Prepared by:
Ascent Environmental 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Chris Mundhenk [email protected]
Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table of Contents
Chapter/Section Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-1 Introduction ...... ES-1 Summary Description of the Project ...... ES-1 Environmental Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures ...... ES-5 Summary of Alternatives ...... ES-5 Areas of Controversy ...... ES-7
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of this EIR ...... 1-1 1.2 Scope of the Draft EIR ...... 1-1 1.3 Agency Roles and Responsibilities ...... 1-5 1.4 CEQA Public Review Process ...... 1-5 1.5 Organization of the Draft EIR ...... 1-8
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Location ...... 2-1 2.3 Project Setting ...... 2-1 2.4 Project History ...... 2-6 2.5 Project Objectives ...... 2-6 2.6 Required Public Approvals ...... 2-7 2.7 Project Description ...... 2-8
3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION ...... 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ...... 3.1-1 3.2 Air Quality ...... 3.2-1 3.3 Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources ...... 3.3-1 3.4 Biological Resources ...... 3.4-1 3.5 Geology and Soils ...... 3.5-1 3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy ...... 3.6-1 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...... 3.7-1 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 3.8-1 3.9 Noise ...... 3.9-1 3.10 Transportation and Circulation ...... 3.10-1 3.11 Utilities and Service Systems ...... 3.11-1
4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...... 4-1 4.1 CEQA Requirements ...... 4-1 4.2 Cumulative Impact Approach ...... 4-1 4.3 Scope of the Cumulative Analysis ...... 4-2 4.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 4-5
Page i Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
5 OTHER CEQA SECTIONS ...... 5-1 5.1 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ...... 5-1 5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes ...... 5-1 5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts ...... 5-3
6 ALTERNATIVES ...... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ...... 6-1 6.2 Considerations for Selection of Alternatives ...... 6-2 6.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 6-5 6.4 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 6-20 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...... 6-21
7 LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 7-1
8 REFERENCES ...... 8-1
Appendices (included on CD on back cover)
A Notice of Preparation and Comments Received B Initial Study C Air Quality/GHG Modeling Results D Noise Modeling E Traffic Modeling
Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1 Project Location ...... 2-2 Exhibit 2-2 Project Vicinity ...... 2-3 Exhibit 2-3 Existing Campus Layout - Aerial ...... 2-4 Exhibit 2-4 Districts ...... 2-9 Exhibit 2-5 Conceptual Land Plan ...... 2-13 Exhibit 2-6 Phasing Plan ...... 2-17
Exhibit 3.1-1 Location of Representative Views and Viewpoints ...... 3.1-6 Exhibit 3.1-2 Viewpoint 1 ...... 3.1-7 Exhibit 3.1-3 Viewpoint 2 ...... 3.1-8 Exhibit 3.1-4 Viewpoint 3 ...... 3.1-9
Exhibit 3.2-1 Sacramento County 2012 Emissions Inventory ...... 3.2-13
Exhibit 3.9-1 Noise Measurement Locations in the Project Area ...... 3.9-14
Page ii Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 3.9-2 Summary of 24-Hour Noise Measurement ...... 3.9-15
Exhibit 3.10-1 Priority Investment Areas in the Vicinity of the Project Site ...... 3.10-4 Exhibit 3.10-2 Study Area ...... 3.10-11 Exhibit 3.10-3 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations ...... 3.10-14 Exhibit 3.10-4 Existing Peak Hour Driveway Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations ...... 3.10-15 Exhibit 3.10-5 Existing Transit Facilities ...... 3.10-20 Exhibit 3.10-6 Existing Bicycle Facilities ...... 3.10-23 Exhibit 3.10-7 Existing Pedestrian Facilities ...... 3.10-25 Exhibit 3.10-8 Existing Employee Commute Travel Modes ...... 3.10-30 Exhibit 3.10-9 Existing Headquarters Campus Employee Residences by ZIP Code ...... 3.10-32 Exhibit 3.10-10 Project Inbound Trip Distribution ...... 3.10-33 Exhibit 3.10-11 Project Outbound Trip Distribution...... 3.10-34 Exhibit 3.10-12 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations ...... 3.10-36 Exhibit 3.10-13 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Driveway Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations ...... 3.10-37
Exhibit 4-1 SMUD HQCMP Cumulative Projects Map ...... 4-4 Exhibit 4-2 Cumulative No Project Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations ...... 4-12 Exhibit 4-3 Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations ...... 4-13
Tables
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... ES-9
Table 1-1 Comment Letters and Discussion Location in Draft EIR ...... 1-6
Table 2-1 HQCMP Development Summary (Existing and Proposed) ...... 2-12 Table 2-2 HQCMP Phasing Plan ...... 2-16
Page iii Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 3.2-2 Table 3.2-2 Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality (2014- 2016) ...... 3.2-9 Table 3.2-3 Attainment Status Designations for Sacramento County ...... 3.2-11 Table 3.2-4 Methodologies Used to Estimate Project-Related Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors ...... 3.2-18 Table 3.2-5 Summary of Modeled Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Project Construction Activities ...... 3.2-20 Table 3.2-6 Summary of Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors ...... 3.2-23
Table 3.3-1 Divisions of Geologic Time ...... 3.3-12
Table 3.4-1 Special-Status Species in Vicinity of the Headquarters Campus 3.4-7
Table 3.5-1 Project Site Soil Characteristics ...... 3.5-5
Table 3.6-1 Sacramento 2005 GHG Inventory by Emissions Sector ...... 3.6-15 Table 3.6-2 Methodologies Used to Estimate Project-Related Emissions ...... 3.6-21 Table 3.6-3 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Proposed HQCMP at Full Buildout ...... 3.6-24 Table 3.6-4 Project-Generated Fuel Consumption ...... 3.6-32 Table 3.6-5 Project-Generated Operational Energy Use ...... 3.6-33
Table 3.9-1 Typical Noise Levels ...... 3.9-1 Table 3.9-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Ground Noise and Vibration ...... 3.9-6 Table 3.9-3 Noise Compatibility Guidelines ...... 3.9-7 Table 3.9-4 Exterior Noise Compatibility Standards for Various Land Uses ...... 3.9-8 Table 3.9-5 Exterior Incremental Noise Impact Standards for Noise- Sensitive Uses (dBA) ...... 3.9-9 Table 3.9-6 Exterior Noise Standards ...... 3.9-11
Page iv Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.9-7 Sacramento City Code Noise Ordinance Interior Noise Level Standards for Sensitive Receptors ...... 3.9-11 Table 3.9-8 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Level Measurements ...... 3.9-13 Table 3.9-9 Summary of Modeled Existing Traffic Noise Levels...... 3.9-15 Table 3.9-10 Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment ...... 3.9-20 Table 3.9-11 Representative Ground Vibration and Noise Levels for Construction Equipment ...... 3.9-21 Table 3.9-12 Summary of Modeled Traffic Noise Levels under Existing No Project and Existing Plus Project Conditions ...... 3.9-24
Table 3.10-1 Intersection Level of Service Definitions ...... 3.10-17 Table 3.10-2 Intersection Operations – Existing Conditions ...... 3.10-17 Table 3.10-3 Existing Headquarters Campus Generated VMT ...... 3.10-19 Table 3.10-4 Existing Influence Area Generated VMT ...... 3.10-19 Table 3.10-5 Gold Line Schedule Summary ...... 3.10-21 Table 3.10-6 Gold Line Light Rail Average Weekday Ridership ...... 3.10-21 Table 3.10-7 SacRT Bus Route Schedule Summary ...... 3.10-21 Table 3.10-8 Intersection Level of Service Standards ...... 3.10-26 Table 3.10-9 Existing Headquarters Campus Vehicle Trip Generation ...... 3.10-28 Table 3.10-10 Existing Headquarters Campus Vehicle Trip Generation Rates ...... 3.10-29 Table 3.10-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan Vehicle Trip Generation ...... 3.10-29 Table 3.10-12 Intersection Operations - Existing Plus Project Conditions ...... 3.10-38 Table 3.10-13 SMUD HQCMP Generated VMT - Existing Plus Project Conditions ...... 3.10-39 Table 3.10-14 Influence Area Generated VMT - Existing Plus Project Conditions ...... 3.10-40
Table 3.11-1 Current Wastewater Generated by the Project Site ...... 3.11-5 Table 3.11-2 Maximum Allowable Annual Surface Water Diversion (afy) for the City of Sacramento1 ...... 3.11-7 Table 3.11-3 City of Sacramento Current and Planned Water Supply and Demand Comparison ...... 3.11-7 Table 3.11-4 Current Water Demand at the Project Site ...... 3.11-8
Page v Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.11-5 Projected Sewer Demand with Implementation of the HQCMP ...... 3.11-12 Table 3.11-6 Projected Water Demand with Implementation of the HQCMP ...... 3.11-14
Table 4-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impacts ...... 4-2 Table 4-2 Cumulative Projects List ...... 4-3 Table 4-3 Intersection Operations - Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ...... 4-14 Table 4-4 SMUD HQCMP Generated VMT - Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ...... 4-16 Table 4-5 Influence Area Generated VMT - Cumulative Plus Project Conditions ...... 4-16
Table 6-1 Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives in Relation to the Project ...... 6-20
Page vi Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR January 2018
Acronyms and Abbreviations
°C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit μ micro
AB Assembly Bill af acre feet AFV alternative fuel vehicle afy acre-feet per year ANSI American National Standards Institute
BMP best management practice Btu British thermal units
CAA Clean Air Act CAAA Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CAFÉ Corporate Average Fuel Economy Cal-OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CALGreen California Green Building Standards CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation CAP Sacramento Climate Action Plan CARB California Air Resources Board CBC California Building Code CCAA California Clean Air Act CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CH4 methane CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CIWMA California Integrated Waste Management Act CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CNRA California Natural Resources Agency CO carbon monoxide
Page vii Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR January 2018
CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e CO2-equivalent CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRHR California Register of Historic Resources CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CSCGMP Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Program CSS combined sewer system CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA A-weighted sound levels DSH diameter at standard height DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EAP Energy Action Plan Ebasco Ebasco Services, Inc. ECOC East-Campus Operations Center EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration EIR environmental impact report EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPAct Energy Policy Act of 1992 EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ESA Endangered Species Act EV electric vehicle
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRM flood insurance rate mps FRF Field Reporting Facility FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
HAP hazardous air pollutants HCM Highway Capacity Manual HCP habitat conservation plan HFC hydrofluorocarbons HQCMP or project Headquarters Campus Master Plan HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
I-5 Interstate 5 I-80 Interstate 80
Page viii Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR January 2018
IBC international building code IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report in/sec inches per second IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IT information technology lb/day pounds per day LDL Larson Davis Laboratories Ldn day-night noise level LEED Leadership Energy and Environmental Design Leq equivalent noise level LID low impact development LIR landscape inventory report Lmax maximum noise level Lmin Minimum Noise Level LOS level of service LRT light rail transit
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mgd million gallons per day MOE measures of effectiveness mpg miles per gallon mph miles per hour MPO metropolitan planning organization MS4 municipal separate storm sewer systems MSW municipal solid waste MT metric tons MTIP Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program MTP/SCS Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy MY Model Year
N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS national ambient air quality standards NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCIC North Central Information Center NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NFIP national flood insurance program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO nitric oxide NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOP Notice of Preparation
Page ix Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR January 2018
NOX nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPPA California Native Plant Protection Act NRCS U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OEHHA California Office of Environmental Health and Assessment OPR Office of Planning and Research OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration ozone photochemical smog
PCE tetrachloroethylene PFC perfluorocarbons PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PM particulate matter PM10 respirable matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less PM2.5 fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less PPV peak particle velocity PRC Public Resources Code PRC Public Resources Code PV photovoltaic
RCP representative concentration pathways RD renewable diesel Regional San Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District RMS root-mean-square ROG reactive organic gases RPS renewable portfolio standard RT Regional Transit District RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments SACMET Sacramento Regional Travel Demand Model SacRT Sacramento Regional Transit SAF Plan State Alternative Fuels Plan SANDAG San Diego Association of Governmets SARA superfund amendments and reauthorization act SB Senate Bill SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SF6 sulfur hexafluoride sf square feet SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SIP State Implementation Plan
Page x Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR January 2018
SLM sound level meter SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMUD Sacramento Municipal Utility District SO2 sulfur dioxide SPCC spill prevention, control, and countermeasure SR State Route SRWWTP Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant SVAB Sacramento Valley Air Basin SWA Solid Waste Authority SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant TCE trichloroethylene TCR tribal cultural resource TPH total petroleum hydrocarbon
UAIC United Auburn Indian Community UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology US 50 U.S. Highway 50 USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey UST underground storage tanks UWMP urban water management plan
VdB vibration decibels
VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compounds
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
Page xi Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR January 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page xii Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Executive Summary Introduction
This summary is provided in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15123. As stated in the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15123(a), “an environmental impact report (EIR) shall contain a brief summary of the proposed actions and its consequences. The language of the summary should be as clear and simple as reasonably practical.” As required by the Guidelines, this section includes: (1) a summary description of the project; (2) a synopsis of environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures; (3) identification of the alternatives evaluated and of the environmentally superior alternative; and (4) a discussion of the areas of controversy associated with the project.
Summary Description of the Project
The Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) is proposing a Headquarters Campus Master Plan (HQCMP or project). It is SMUD’s goal for the HQCMP to provide strategic direction and long-term planning over the next 20 years and, in turn, to support streamlined development and maintenance of SMUD’s Headquarters Campus.
Project Objectives
SMUD’s objectives for the project include:
• foster development of a campus befitting SMUD’s physical and historical setting as part of the Sacramento region and which is compatible with the City of Sacramento General Plan, the proposed 59th Street Re-Use Project, and planned improvements along 65th Street by the City of Sacramento;
• consolidate and modernize SMUD resources based on current spacing needs;
• promote alternatives to individual, fossil-fuel automobile transportation and promote pedestrian connectivity;
• improve connectivity between and with the local and regional community while maintaining SMUD’s security needs as an essential utility service in the Sacramento region; and
• establish design guidelines that will provide recommendations to create a compelling and unifying design vision for the campus.
Project Location
The SMUD Headquarters Campus (project site) is located in Sacramento, California and is entirely owned and operated by SMUD. The project site is bounded by 59th Street
Page ES-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
to the west, 65th Street to the east, Folsom Boulevard to the north, and S Street to the south. The Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) light rail transit (LRT) track alignment bisects the site and forms a portion of the site’s northern border. The total HQCMP area is approximately 38 acres, with approximately 10 acres north of the SacRT track alignment and 28 acres south of the alignment.
Project Characteristics
The HQCMP is intended as a 20-year plan for the enhancement of SMUD’s Headquarters Campus that takes into account all of the features needed to make a complete campus that maximizes operating efficiency of various SMUD departments and improves the interaction of the Headquarters Campus with the surrounding neighborhoods. The underlying elements of the HQCMP include:
• Creation of a continuous security “perimeter” around the SMUD staff-only portion of the Headquarters Campus consisting of fencing along the SacRT LRT track alignment, and attractive landscaped barriers where the Headquarters Campus meets public streets and between the proposed SMUD Corporate Center and Community Energy/Innovation Center.
• Definition of a more prominent urban edge at the north side of S Street between 59th and 61st streets with two new proposed SMUD buildings.
• Enhancement of the existing network of pathways and sidewalks to provide continuous, and safe, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
• Enrichment of the pedestrian environment, with new landscaped open space and improved outdoor amenities, including seating, shade trees, and outdoor collaboration spaces.
• Relocation of a majority of surface vehicular parking to a new vehicular spine adjacent to the SacRT LRT line, and repurposing space at the center of the Headquarters Campus currently used for parking to create new landscapes and enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
• Improve SMUD’s interface with the 59th Street LRT station as a highly visible multi- modal hub with direct access to public parking and a multi-purpose plaza adjacent to a new proposed SMUD Community Energy/Innovation Center that consolidates public-interfacing uses.
• Introduction of a variety of traffic-calming measures on the Headquarters Campus, vehicular routes to improve safety and encourage walking and bicycle use, including shared vehicle/bicycle rights of way, a separated bicycle trail, raised pedestrian crossings and road-surface patterning.
Page ES-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Reinvention of the underutilized area west of the 61st Street entrance with a new proposed warehouse structure adjacent to the SacRT LRT line and a new training center adjacent to S Street.
• Relocation of the Auxiliary Building (currently adjacent to the 59th Street SacRT LRT station).
• Enhancement of the area around the Headquarters Building to incorporate improved pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
• Potential identification of a parcel for future SMUD use or sale or lease adjacent to Folsom Boulevard.
• Location of a possible future expansion of the SMUD Customer Service Center, which would be rebranded as the SMUD Corporate Center upon completion of the Community Energy/Innovation Center.
• Modernization of the Central Plant.
Almost all of the land within the project site is currently developed with utility-related uses (predominantly offices). Opportunities for additional development are limited and are primarily confined to the redevelopment of existing facilities within the project site. The proposed HQCMP preserves the existing circulation network (i.e., surrounding streets) and establishes policies intended to enhance the interface between the Headquarters Campus and established neighborhoods. Proposed changes in the type or intensity of land use focus exclusively on the streamlining and improving of existing SMUD operations and providing a clear point of public interface. These proposed land use designation changes are intended to allow development of uses and features that are beneficial to the community and make the Headquarters Campus a more sustainable place to work.
Table 1 identifies the existing, proposed, and potential net changes in land uses and development within the project site that would occur as a result of implementation of the HQCMP. As shown in this table, the Headquarters Campus currently provides approximately 437,000 sf of SMUD-related uses, including office space, the Childcare Center, the Central Plant, and SMUD IT/communications equipment. Much of the western and northern portions of the project site would be redeveloped under the HQCMP, resulting in a net increase of 140,100 sf of SMUD-related uses. Much of the project site located north of the SacRT alignment would be left vacant, except for the existing Central Plant and FRF and relocated Auxiliary Building. Customer interaction would be shifted from the Customer Service Center to the Community Energy/Innovation Center that would be located at the northeast corner of S and 59th streets. Additionally, and for the purposes of this EIR, up to 80,000 sf of additional office space is assumed within a flex space located along Folsom. Upon completion of the Community Energy/Innovation Center, it is the intent that the majority of customer service functions currently conducted in the Customer Service Center would be
Page ES-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 relocated to the Community Energy/Innovation Center; and the Customer Service Center would be rebranded as the SMUD Corporate Center.
Table 2-1 HQCMP Development Summary (Existing and Proposed)
Existing Proposed Structure/Facility Floor Area Number Floor Area Number of Notes (sf) of Floors (sf) Floors SMUD Corporate Shedding of customer-facing services, Center (formerly building rebranding and 20,000-sf 177,000 4 197,000 4 Customer Service addition to southeast corner of Center) structure. No physical changes anticipated, Headquarters Building 132,000 5 132,000 5 although interior operations may shift. Fitness Center 5,500 1 5,500 1 No physical changes anticipated. Modernization/ Redevelopment/ Central Plant 17,000 1 17,000 1 Redistribution of existing operations within existing footprint. Childcare Center 5,400 1 -- -- Field Reporting 50,000 2 50,000 2 Facility Facility would be redeveloped north of Auxiliary Building 50,000 2 50,000 2 SacRT track alignment. Community Customer interface would shift from Energy/Innovation 48,000 3 SMUD Customer Service Center to Center this facility. Intended for training of SMUD staff Learning Center 52,500 2 and contractors. Includes additional warehouse space. Utility Building 25,000 1 There are no specific planned uses within the Folsom Boulevard District Folsom Boulevard Up to 2 under the HQCMP. However, this EIR Flex Space 80,000 assumes that up to 80,000-sf of office space could be developed. Subtotal 436,900 1-5 657,000 1-5 Potential Net Increase 220,100 Source: SMUD 2018
Potential Approvals and Permits Required
Elements of the project could be subject to permitting and/or approval authority of other agencies. As the lead agency pursuant to CEQA, SMUD is responsible for considering the adequacy of the EIR and determining if the project should be approved. Other potential permits required from other agencies could include:
Page ES-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
State
• State Water Resources Control Board/Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board: Construction Storm Water Discharge Permits.
• California Department of Transportation: Permits for movement of oversized or excessive loads on State Highways.
Local
• Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD): Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate pursuant to SMAQMD Regulation 2 (Rule 201 et seq.).
• City of Sacramento:
o Planning review – to comply with the City of Sacramento Zoning Ordinance and development standards.
o Tree removal permit—to comply with the City of Sacramento Tree Ordinance.
o Building permits—to comply with Sacramento City Code requirements.
o Encroachment permit.
o Off-site improvement plans. Environmental Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures
Table ES-1, at the end of this chapter, provides a summary of the environmental impacts of the project, the level of significance of the impact before mitigation, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of significance of the impact after the implementation of the mitigation measures.
Summary of Alternatives
Alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIR are:
• Alternative A (No Project), which assumes no development occurs on the project site; and
• Alternative B (Maximum Preservation), which assumes maximum preservation of on-site campus structures through repurposing;
• Alternative C (Reduced Acreage), which assumes that SMUD would sell existing property along 59th Street and Folsom Boulevard and develop additional facilities within a reduced campus footprint; and
Page ES-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Alternative D (Off-Site – Hedge), which assumes certain operations and future growth that would otherwise be intended for the Headquarters Campus under the HQCMP would be shifted to the Hedge Training Facility.
The following summary provides brief descriptions of the alternatives. For a more thorough discussion of project alternatives, see Chapter 6, “Alternatives.”
Alternative A (No Project)
Under this alternative, SMUD would not adopt a long-term plan to guide the development and management of SMUD operations within its Headquarters Campus. Existing structures would be maintained in their current condition and would only be modified in response to specific requests from the various SMUD departments in response to immediate needs.
Alternative B (Maximum Preservation)
Under this alternative, SMUD would maintain more of the Headquarters Campus in its current form. Uses would be largely reoriented within the campus with little to no expansion in use. In total, this alternative would add approximately 75,000 square feet of useable space to the Headquarters Campus, and would be primarily associated with the Utility Building and Training Center & Office that would be constructed at the site of the former Kramer property. The existing Auxiliary Building would be repurposed as an innovation center, while a new Auxiliary Building would be constructed on the site of the existing Field Reporting Facility (FRF) building. Customer-interfacing uses within the existing Customer Service Center would be expanded, and visitor parking would be maintained along S Street. Throughout the site, existing entry and on-site circulation would largely be maintained.
Alternative C (Reduced Acreage)
Under this alternative, SMUD would densify its operations within the plan area such that only 31 acres of the 38-acre HQCMP plan area would be necessary. The remaining 6 acres would be sold as two separate parcels, one along 59th Street and one along Folsom Boulevard. It would be up to the purchasing entity to determine future use, consistent with the City of Sacramento’s General Plan. Under this alternative, SMUD would concentrate operations and new development around the existing Headquarters Building and Customer Service Center. Development would include a newly proposed Community Energy/Innovation Center at the former Kramer property to handle all customer/public interface. The site of the FRF would also be redeveloped with a newly proposed Utility Building and Training Center & Office. Auxiliary Building operations would be relocated offsite to the East Campus Operations Center under this alternative. This alternative would also include a proposed parking structure to the west of the existing Headquarters Building, within an existing surface parking lot. Up to a 100,000- square-foot increase in SMUD-related operations would occur under this alternative, compared to the proposed HQCMP.
Page ES-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Alternative D (Off-Site – Hedge)
Under this alternative, SMUD would shift certain operations, including management of power transmission and distribution and IT/communications, and planned growth to the Hedge Training Facility. This would require construction of new facilities within the Hedge Facility, and may require removal of on-site solar facilities at Hedge. Physical structures within the Headquarters Campus would be maintained in their current condition with no expansion of use, although functions within each structure may be redistributed/reallocated. The SMUD Customer Service Center would continue to function as the point of interface with the surrounding community and SMUD customers.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
As stated in Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” the environmentally superior alternative to the HQCMP would be Alternative B (Maximum Preservation) although it would not achieve the project objectives to the extent of the HQCMP.
Areas of Controversy
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092 and CCR Section 15082, SMUD issued a notice of preparation (NOP) on September 18, 2017, to inform agencies and the general public that an EIR was being prepared and to invite comments on the scope and content of the document (Appendix A). SMUD accepted comments on the scope of the EIR between September 18 and October 17, 2017. A noticed scoping meeting for the EIR occurred on September 27, 2017 at the SMUD Customer Service Center in Sacramento, CA.
Based on the comments received during the NOP comment period, the major areas of controversy associated with the project include:
• potential impacts to cultural resources, including resources that may be considered tribal cultural resources;
• need for a traffic impact study;
• need for permits, as applicable, including: movement of oversized or excessive loads on State highways or encroachment onto the State right-of-way;
• regulatory considerations related to water quality (surface and groundwater);
• need for permits, as applicable, including: construction stormwater general permit, Phase I and II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permits, industrial stormwater general permit, Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 permits, and waste discharge requirements.
Page ES-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Areas of controversy that fall within the scope of CEQA are addressed in this Draft EIR and its appendices. Issues that fall outside the scope of CEQA are not evaluated in this Draft EIR; however, SMUD will continue to respond to these issues through the project planning process.
All of the substantive environmental issues raised in the NOP comment letters have been addressed or otherwise considered during preparation of this Draft EIR.
Page ES-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation
3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Impact 3.1-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on existing LTS No mitigation is required. LTS visual character. The proposed project would create visually- similar uses as the current Headquarters Campus. The HQCMP includes landscaping plans in the proposal to maintain the visual character of the site. The impact on visual character of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant.
Impact 3.1-2: Create a new source of light or glare. PS Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Lighting standards. LTS Implementation of the HQCMP could include the removal or All new outdoor lighting shall utilize directional lighting movement of site features that could alter the location of lighting methods with shielded and cutoff type light fixtures to and create new sources of light that could be perceived off-site. minimize glare and direct light downward to prevent light This impact would be potentially significant. trespass outside the project boundary.
3.2 Air Quality
Impact 3.2-1: Short-term, construction-generated emissions S Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Incorporate dust control LTS of ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5. Project implementation would measures. result in short-term construction-related emissions associated with During all construction activities, the construction contractor the construction of new buildings and retrofitting of existing facilities shall comply with the following measures: on the SMUD Headquarters Campus. Based on modeling results, • Water all exposed surfaces two times daily. Exposed NOX emissions were estimated at 50 lb/day during construction surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded activity and would be below the significance threshold of 85 lb/day. areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and Construction activity would also generate 9.4 lb/day of PM10 and 5.8 access roads. lb/day of PM2.5 and would exceed SMAQMD’s thresholds of zero for these pollutants. Therefore, this impact would be significant. • Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways should be covered. • Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph) or to the extent feasible. • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Impact 3.2-2: Long-term, operation-related emissions of criteria LTS No mitigation is required. LTS air pollutants and precursor emissions. Project implementation would result in operational-related emissions of criteria air pollutants from a variety of sources, although primarily from commute-related emissions associated with increase in SMUD employment. Long- term operational activities would result in 8.3 lb/day of NOX, 10.5 lb/day of ROG, 16.2 lb/day of PM10, and 4.4 lb/day of PM2.5. These daily emissions would be below SMAQMDs operational significance thresholds. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Impact 3.2-3: Mobile-source CO concentrations. Project LTS No mitigation is required. LTS implementation would include the addition of up to 835 new SMUD employees over a 20-year planning horizon, resulting in an increase in associated employee commute trips. Based on the traffic study conducted for the project, this increase in vehicle trips would not result in a downgrading of level of service at project-affected intersections to a degree that would result in localized CO concentrations. Based on SMAQMDs recommended screening methodology, this would not result in CO emissions that would contribute to the exceedance of the applicable threshold of significance and, therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant. NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation
Impact 3.2-4: Exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs. Project LTS No mitigation is required. LTS implementation would result in emissions of TACs from short-term construction activity and long-term operational activities. Construction activities would be intermittent and temporary in nature and are not anticipated to the exceed SMAQMD significance thresholds. Operational TAC emissions are primarily associated with the potential use of emergency backup diesel generators and increases in vehicular traffic associated with increases in employment. These operational emissions are not anticipated to exceed the SMAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
3.3 Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 3.3-1: Change in the significance of a historic resource LTS No mitigation is required. LTS (structures). One building on the project site has been identified as a historical resource. The Headquarters Building is currently undergoing modernization and the proposed project does not include any renovations or modifications to the building. There would be a less-than-significant impact on the historic resource.
Impact 3.3-2: Change the significance of a historic resource PS Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: Prepare landscape LTS (historic landscape). The SMUD Headquarters Landscape is listed rehabilitation plan. in the NRHP. The incorporation of bicycle and pedestrian elements Prior to completion of final site design for enhancements (e.g., anticipated in the HQCMP for the Headquarters District could alter benches, walkways, etc.) to existing landscaped areas to the or destroy character-defining elements of the landscape. This would west and east of the Headquarters Building, SMUD shall be a potentially significant impact. complete a plan for the treatment of the historic Headquarters Landscape. The plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect who complies with the Secretary’s Standards. Because of the need to alter or add to this historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property’s historic character, the plan will be a rehabilitation plan as defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation the Treatment of Historic Properties. Per the Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, a successful Landscape Rehabilitation Plan will see that the character-defining features and materials of a historic landscape are protected and maintained, but also allows for an opportunity to make possible an efficient contemporary use through alterations and additions. The plan shall illustrate how to apply the rehabilitation treatments in a way that meets the Secretary’s Standards.
Impact 3.3-3: Impacts to previously unidentified human PS Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Halt ground-disturbing activity LTS remains. Based on documentary research, no evidence suggests upon discovery of human remains. that any prehistoric or historic-era marked or un-marked human If human remains are discovered during any interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the demolition/construction activities, potentially damaging project site. However, ground-disturbing construction activities could ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of the remains uncover previously unknown human remains. This would be a shall be halted immediately, and the project applicant shall potentially significant impact. notify the Sacramento County coroner and the NAHC immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the PRC and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the NAHC to be Native American, the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. Following the coroner’s and NAHC’s findings, the archaeologist, and the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in PRC Section 5097.94.
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation
Impact 3.3-4: Impacts to paleontological resources. No PS Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: Avoid destruction of LTS paleontological resources are known to occur within the project site; paleontological resources. however, similar Pleistocene sediments throughout the Sacramento 1. The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist Valley have produced significant paleontological resources. Earth- to conduct an on-site training that will alert all construction disturbing activities could potentially damage previously unknown personnel and operational staff involved in equipment paleontological resources. This would be a potentially significant training about the possibility of encountering fossils. The impact. appearance and types of fossils likely to be seen during construction will be described. Construction personnel shall be trained about the proper notification procedures should fossils be encountered. 2. If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, including on-site training activities, the project applicant shall immediately halt operations within 100 feet of the find and notify the applicant. The applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist for identification and salvage of fossils so that construction delays can be minimized. If large specimens are discovered, the paleontologist shall have the authority to halt or divert grading and construction equipment while the finds are removed. The paleontologist shall be responsible for implementing all tasks summarized below: • In the event of discovery, salvage of unearthed fossil remains, typically involving simple excavation of the exposed specimen but possibly also plaster-jacketing of large and/or fragile specimens, or more elaborate quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous deposits. • Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of fossil- bearing strata, measurement and description of the overall stratigraphic section, and photographic
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation documentation of the geologic setting. • Laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil remains to a point of curation, generally involving removal of enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile specimens (using glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens. • Cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains, typically involving scientific identification of specimens, inventory of specimens, assignment of catalog numbers, and entry of data into an inventory database. • Preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory methods used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered, and the significance of the curated collection.
3.4 Biological Resources
Impact 3.4-1: Disturbance of nesting Swainson’s hawk, white- PS Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Avoid disturbance of active LTS tailed kite, or other avian species. Project implementation would nests. result in construction disturbances that could cause Swainson’s Bird nesting season typically is from February 1 through hawk, white-tailed kite, or other avian species to abandon their August 31. Construction activities (including vegetation nests, if located nearby. Therefore, project construction could cause clearing) conducted outside of the nesting bird season would direct mortality of chicks and eggs. This impact would be potentially not disturb nesting birds. Therefore, SMUD, if possible, will significant. schedule construction activities that could occur proximate to nesting bird habitat outside of the nesting season. If construction will occur during the nesting season, a SMUD project biologist/biological monitor will conduct pre- construction nesting bird surveys to determine if birds are nesting in the work area. The pre-construction nesting bird surveys will identify on-site bird species and any nest- building behavior. NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation • If no nesting birds are found in or within 500 feet of the project site during the pre-construction clearance surveys, construction activities may proceed as scheduled. • If pre-nesting behavior is observed, but an active nest has not yet been established (e.g., courtship displays, but no eggs in a constructed nest), a nesting bird deterrence and removal program will be implemented. Such deterrence methods include removal of previous year’s nesting materials and removal of partially completed nests in progress. Once a nest is situated and identified with eggs or young, it is considered to be “active” and the nest cannot be removed until the young have fledged. • Because bird species may breed multiple times in a season, monitoring for nesting birds will continue during the nesting season to address new arrivals. A qualified biologist will conduct weekly nesting bird surveys in the construction area during the nesting season and deter establishment of nests by removing partial completed nests. • If an active nest is found in or within 500 feet of the project site during construction, a “No Construction” buffer zone will be established around the active nest (usually a minimum radius of 50 feet for passerine birds and 500 feet for raptors) to minimize the potential for disturbance of the nesting activity. The project biologist/biological monitor will determine and flag the appropriate buffer size required, based on the species, specific situation, tolerances of the species, and the nest location. Project activities will resume in the buffer area when the project biologist/biological monitor has
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation determined that the nest(s) is (are) no longer active. • If special-status bird species are found nesting in or within 500 feet of the project site, the project biologist/biological monitor will notify SMUD’s project manager to notify CDFW or USFWS, as appropriate within 24 hours of first nesting observation.
Impact 3.4-2: Conflict with provisions of the Sacramento City S Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Maintain consistency with city LTS Code intended to protect biological resources. The project site is of Sacramento tree ordinance. located within the City of Sacramento and subject to the provisions Upon approval of the HQCMP and prior to on-site of the Sacramento City Code. Construction associated with the construction activities involving tree removal, SMUD shall HQCMP may require the removal of on-site trees, some of which prepare a Landscape Inventory Report (LIR) for the could be considered Private Protected or City Trees under the Headquarters Campus Master Plan Area, for those areas not Sacramento City Code. Without acquisition of a permit from the City covered under the Headquarters Building and Site Cultural prior to tree removal, impacts would be considered significant. Landscape Report (SMUD 2014). This mitigation requirement may also be satisfied through preparation of an Urban Forest Plan for the campus. Prior to removal of on-site trees associate with a phase of development under the HQCMP, SMUD shall submit a tree permit application to the City’s Director of Department of Public Works for any trees within the permitting requirements that may be removed, pruned, or otherwise modified by project activities. The tree permit application will identify all tree removals, prunings, or modifications that are expected to occur as a result of project implementation. The application will also be accompanied by a tree replacement plan, consistent with ratios outlined in the City’s ordinance, for any proposed tree removals, if deemed necessary by the Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Sacramento. A certified arborist shall approve all work plans prior to submittal to the City. Replacement trees will be planted on-site and incorporated into the landscape plans of the project. Tree
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation planting will comply with the City’s landscaping requirements (Sacramento City Code Sections 17.612.010 and 17.612.040). SMUD’s contractor shall erect protective fencing with tree protection signs around all trees (or tree groups) to be preserved during construction activities. The protective fence will be installed at the limits of the tree protection zone, usually the dripline of the tree or as defined by the project arborist or biologist. This will delineate the tree protection area and prevent unwanted activity in and around the trees and will reduce soil compaction in the root zones of the trees and other damage from heavy equipment. SMUD contractor will maintain the fence to keep it upright, taut, and aligned at all times. Fencing will be removed only after all construction activities are complete. Canopy or root pruning of any retained protected trees to accommodate construction and/or fire lane access will conform to the techniques and standards in the current edition of ANSI A300 (Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance—Standard Practices) or International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices.
3.5 Geology and Soils
Impact 3.5-1: Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of PS Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prepare and implement a LTS topsoil. Implementation of the HQCMP would involve construction stormwater pollution prevention plan. of new/renovated facilities over a period of approximately 20 years. Before any ground-disturbing activities begin, the SMUD Although construction activities would be temporary, grading and contractor shall apply for and maintain coverage under the other ground-disturbing activities would expose soil and could result General Construction Storm Water Permit. The contractor in erosion. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant. shall prepare and implement a SWPPP, including an erosion control plan that includes erosion control measures and construction waste containment measures to ensure that waters of the United States and the State are protected during NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-17 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation and after project construction. The SWPPP shall include site design measures to minimize offsite stormwater runoff that might otherwise affect surrounding habitats. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board will review and monitor the effectiveness of the SWPPP through mandatory reporting by SMUD and the contractor as required. The SWPPP shall be prepared with the following objectives: (a) identify all pollutant sources, including sources of sediment, that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges from the construction of the project; (b) identify BMPs that effectively reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the site during construction to the Best Available Technology/Best Control Technology standard; (c) provide calculations and design details as well as BMP controls for site run-on that are complete and correct; (d) identify project discharge points and receiving waters; and (e) provide stabilization BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants following construction. The contractor shall implement the SWPPP, including all BMPs, and perform inspections of all BMPs during construction. Potential SWPPP BMPs could include, but would not be limited to the following: • preserve existing vegetation where possible; • surface roughening of final grades to prevent erosion, decrease run-off, increase infiltration, and aid in vegetation establishment; • riparian buffers or filter strips along the perimeter of the disturbed area to intercept pollutants prior to offsite discharge; • placing fiber rolls around on-site drain inlets to prevent
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-18 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation sediment and construction-related debris from entering inlets; • placing fiber rolls along down-gradient disturbed areas of the site to reduce runoff flow velocities and prevent sediment from leaving the site; • placing silt fences down-gradient of disturbed areas to slow down runoff and retain sediment; • stabilizing the construction entrance to reduce the tracking of mud and dirt onto public roads by construction vehicles; • staging excavated and stored construction materials and soil stockpiles in stable areas and covering materials to prevent erosion; and • stabilizing temporary construction entrances to limit transport/introduction of invasive species and control fugitive dust emissions.
Impact 3.5-2: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is PS Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: Conduct a site-specific LTS unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the geotechnical investigation. project. Historically the project area has experienced a low level of Prior to final design of a new/renovated structure within the seismic activity; however, there is the potential for unstable soils to Headquarters Campus, the SMUD contractor shall complete exist in the project area. Therefore, this impact would be potentially a site-specific geotechnical investigation and report for the significant. project, to be prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer or Geotechnical Engineer. The purpose of the report will be to set forth design and construction measures intended to ensure site stability in compliance with applicable seismic and building codes. All design and construction measures provided in the geotechnical report prepared for the project site shall be implemented during further design and construction, as applicable. The report shall address and make recommendations on the following:
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-19 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation • road, pavement, and parking area design; • structural foundations; • grading practices; • erosion/winterization; • special problems discovered onsite (e.g., groundwater, expansive/unstable soils); and • slope stability.
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy
Impact 3.6-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions during Construction S Mitigation Measure 3.6-1a: GHG reduction commitment. LTS and Operation. Construction activity associated with development SMUD shall incorporate a combination of on-site and, if of new facilities under the HQCMP would generate approximately necessary off-site, GHG reduction measures to compensate 651 MT CO2e. At full buildout, implementation of the HQCMP would the project’s GHG emissions by a total of 1,666 MT result in an increase in operational emissions of approximately CO2e/year, thus resulting in no net increase in GHG 2,442 MT CO2e/year. These levels of GHG emissions have the emissions over conditions existing without the proposed potential to result in a considerable contribution to cumulative project. SMUD shall designate a qualified energy professional emissions related to global climate change and conflict with state to prepare a GHG reduction plan to track and ensure that this GHG reduction targets. The contribution of the HQCMP to this performance standard is met. Continued improvements of on- cumulative impact would be considerable. This impact would be site equipment and reductions in GHG emissions from project significant. design and equipment can be counted to meet this measure. For example, depending on specific equipment chosen to upgrade the central plant, GHG emissions savings may vary. When improvement plans are prepared, and specific technology is chosen, the GHG emissions savings shall be quantified and applied to meet this requirement.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1b: On-site GHG reduction measures. To reduce GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed improvements associated with the SMUD HQCMP, the following on-site GHG reduction NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-20 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation measures shall be incorporated into project design of each proposed structure, to the extent feasible: Construction Phase GHG Reduction Measures • Use alternative fuels for generators at construction sites such as propane or solar, or use electrical power. To the extent feasible, all diesel-powered construction equipment shall be fueled with renewable diesel fuel. The renewable diesel fuel purchased for use in construction equipment must be compliant with CARB fuel pathways for renewable diesel (i.e., diesel sourced from 100 percent renewable sources). • Implement a construction-worker carpool and transit program to encourage construction workers to carpool and use public transit to commute to and from the project site. The program shall include a virtual or real “ride board” for workers to organize car pools. The program shall also reimburse workers for any expenses they incur from using local public transit to commute to the construction site. • Install a temporary electric power connection at the construction site to power any electric power equipment used during project construction (e.g., welders, lights) in lieu of any stationary generators powered by fossil fuels. • Recycle or salvage non-hazardous construction and demolition debris (goal of at least 75 percent by weight) and use locally sourced or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at least 20 percent based on costs for building materials, and based on volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products utilized should be certified through a sustainable forestry program.
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-21 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation • Minimize the amount of concrete for paved surfaces, utilize permeable and/or cool paving surfaces or utilize a low carbon concrete option. On-site GHG Reduction Measures The project, as proposed, includes a series of measures that would reduce energy use and GHG emissions associated in new/reconstructed facilities that are part. Section 5.5, “Sustainable Architectural Strategies” of the HQCMP provides a series of design strategies to be considered for integration into new SMUD facilities on the headquarters campus. The following design measures would achieve GHG reductions above and beyond the strategies already set forth in the HQCMP and are framed in consideration of CEC energy policy goals of achieving Zero Net Energy for all new non- residential buildings built after 2030 (CEC 2014). • Adopt the CALGreen Tier 1 voluntary measures for nonresidential buildings (Appendix A5 of the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11) that provide specific performance standards for each measure. • Design new buildings to meet a Zero Net Energy or Zero Net Carbon standard. The following design measures could be implemented to support the above measures and achieve further GHG reductions during project implementation. • Minimize on-site parking availability. • Implement an employee commute VMT reduction target of 15 percent or more over current employee VMT. • Overall increase in on-site renewable energy sources. • Ensure that all appliances and fixtures installed in buildings developed or redeveloped as part of the project are Energy Star®–certified if an Energy Star®–certified NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-22 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation model of the appliance is available. Types of Energy Star®–certified appliances include boilers, ceiling fans, central and room air conditioners, clothes washers, compact fluorescent light bulbs, computer monitors, copiers, consumer electronics, dehumidifiers, dishwashers, external power adapters, furnaces, geothermal heat pumps, programmable thermostats, refrigerators and freezers, residential light fixtures, room air cleaners, transformers, televisions, vending machines, ventilating fans, and windows (EPA 2017b). • Install electric tankless, rooftop solar water heating system(s), or other more efficient alternatives to traditional natural gas heating systems. • Consider setting a zero waste-to-landfill goal for SMUD operations, which may include a composting program and reuse/recycling measures. • To reduce indoor water use by installing low-flow plumping fixtures. • Reduce outdoor water use by reducing turf area and use water-efficient irrigation systems (i.e., smart sprinkler meters) and landscaping techniques/design, installing rain water capture systems. • If feasible, install a grey water system to irrigate outdoor landscaping and/or to use for indoor non-potable water uses. • Use drought tolerant plants in landscaped areas, where feasible (does not apply to orchard area). • Incorporate site design features to reduce on-site heat island effect including wall shading.
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-23 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1c: Off-site GHG reduction commitment. If after incorporation of all feasible on-site GHG reduction measures, project GHG emissions are not reduced to zero, SMUD shall purchase carbon credits to offset the level of project-related GHG emissions remaining after implementation of the feasible on-site measures identified above. The GHG plan shall include calculation of carbon credits that SMUD shall purchase from The Climate Registry or a CARB-approved offset project to reduce net project- related GHG emissions. This measure is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c)(3), which states that measures to mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions may include “off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required…” The quantity of carbon credits purchased by SMUD to offset the project’s operational GHG emissions shall be estimated based on annual mass of GHG emissions, less the reductions achieved by implementation of on-site operational GHG emission reduction measures described above, multiplied by an operational life of 25 years. The GHG reduction plan shall demonstrate the quantified reductions in operational GHG emissions achieved by implementation of these measures.
Impact 3.6-2: Impacts of climate change on the project. The LTS No mitigation is required. LTS project site will experience the impacts of climate change over the next century, with the most relevant impacts being increased average temperatures, increased variability of precipitation patterns and locations, and impacts of snowmelt on available drinking water supplies. SMUDs HQCMP includes a series of policies and design guidelines that would serve to address the short and long-term effects of climate change on the project site. Although there is some
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-24 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation uncertainty regarding the specific effects of climate change on the project site, the HQCMP policies and site design features included in the HQCMP are anticipated to be able to mitigate these effects and reduce overall risk from the effects of climate change on the project site. SMUD maintains a Climate Readiness Assessment and Action Plan which will be updated during the completion of the HQCMP and address any newly identified risks. Therefore, the impacts of climate change on the project would be less than significant.
Impact 3.6-3: Wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary LTS No mitigation is required. LTS consumption of energy. Project implementation would result in energy consumption associated with the use of heavy-duty construction equipment during construction phases of the project. Project implementation would also result in energy use during the operational phase of the project including natural gas and electricity consumption for building operations and transportation fuel use for commute trips from new SMUD employees to and from the project site. The SMUD HQCMP includes a series of design features, discussed in detail in the Regulatory Setting section that would serve to reduce overall energy use in the new buildings constructed or redeveloped as part of project implementation. Energy use, as a result of project implementation, would be considered a necessary part of operational activities on the project site and would not be considered a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Impact 3.6-4: Demand for energy services and facilities. Project LTS No mitigation is required. LTS implementation would result in energy use associated with operation of the project site as well as transportation energy use for commute trips from new SMUD employees to and from the project site. The project site is located within an existing urban area with both natural gas and electricity infrastructure in place. Project implementation
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-25 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation would result in increased energy use although this increase in energy use would not require new energy services and facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 3.7-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the PS Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Treatment/disposal of LTS environment through the routine transport, use, disposal of, or contaminated soils and materials. accident conditions involving the release of hazardous To reduce health hazards associated with potential exposure material, including sites included on a list of hazardous to hazardous substances, SMUD and/or its construction materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code contractors shall implement the following measures before Section 65962.5. Implementation of the HQCMP would result in initiation of construction activities within 250 feet of the former ground-disturbing activities during redevelopment/improvement of Kramer Carton building and former linen facility: the project site. Known contamination sites that have yet to be • SMUD shall retain a licensed contractor to identify and remediated are located within the Headquarters Campus. While remove any USTs and other equipment associated with SMUD would be required to comply with federal, state, and local historic uses at the former Kramer property and former regulations that would lessen the likelihood of hazardous material linen facility. Such removal shall occur in accordance impacts to the public, development under the HQCMP could result with Sacramento County Environmental Management in the accidental release of hazardous materials. For these reasons, Department and RWQCB regulations, including SWRCB impacts related to transport, use, disposal, and/or accident regulations outlined in CCR Title 23, Division 3, Chapter conditions involving the release of hazardous materials remains 16. These regulations establish separate monitoring potentially significant. requirements for existing USTs; establish uniform requirements for unauthorized release reporting and for repair, upgrade, and closure of USTs; and specify variance request procedures. The appropriate federal, state, and local agencies shall be notified if evidence of previously undiscovered soil or groundwater contamination (e.g., stained soil, odorous groundwater) is encountered during construction activities. • SMUD shall retain a qualified environmental professional to conduct follow-up sampling to characterize the contamination and to identify any required remediation that shall be conducted consistent with applicable NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-26 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation regulations. The environmental professional shall prepare a report that includes but is not limited to activities performed for the assessment, a summary of anticipated contaminants and contaminant concentrations at the project site, and recommendations for appropriate handling of any contaminated materials during construction. Any contaminated areas shall be remediated in accordance with recommendations made by the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department, Central Valley RWQCB, DTSC, or other appropriate federal, state, or local regulatory agencies. • The former Kramer property and former linen facility shall not be redeveloped prior to discontinuation of operation of the childcare center.
Impact 3.7-2: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous PS Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Implement Mitigation Measure LTS or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 3.7-1. 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. The project site is SMUD shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, conduct a located within the vicinity of several existing schools. However, detailed site evaluation for any proposed development within implementation of the HQCMP would not alter the use type or 250 feet of the former Kramer Carton building and former characteristics of on-site operations within 0.25 mile of existing or linen facility and remediation of on-site soils, if required. proposed schools such that potential hazardous emissions or materials could impact nearby schools. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with development near the former Kramer Carton building and former linen facility would be within 0.25 mile of an existing school. Impacts would be potentially significant.
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 3.8-1: Short-term water quality impacts. Construction PS Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Implement Mitigation Measure LTS activities associated with HQCMP implementation would involve 3.5-1. grading and movement of soil, which could result in erosion and SMUD will implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1, in Section sedimentation, and discharge of other nonpoint source pollutants in 3.5, “Geology and Soils,” which requires preparation and
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-27 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation on-site stormwater that could then drain to off-site areas and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs, such as degrade local water quality. Therefore, this impact would be preservation of existing vegetation where possible, surface potentially significant. roughening of final grades, use of riparian buffers or filter strips, stabilization of exposed disturbed areas with hydroseed, use of fiber rolls and silt fences, and stabilization of exposed soils. Refer to Section 3.5 for the full text of this mitigation measure.
Impact 3.8-2: Alteration of the site’s existing drainage pattern. PS Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Implement Mitigation Measure LTS Project construction activities could alter the drainage pattern of the 3.5-1. project site sufficiently to result in erosion and sedimentation, and SMUD will implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 in Section 3.5, discharge of other nonpoint source pollutants, which would degrade “Geology and Soils,” which requires preparation and local water quality. Impacts would be potentially significant. implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs.
3.9 Noise and Vibration
Impact 3.9-1: Short-term construction noise impacts. LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Construction activities associated with the future land use changes under the HQCMP could generate noise levels that exceed the noise standards established by the City of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance. This is considered a potentially significant impact; however, construction activities would be inherently short- term in nature and would be consistent with the noise exemptions for construction noise in the City’s Municipal Code. Furthermore, construction activities would adhere to parameters of acceptable construction operations found in the City of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance. This impact would therefore be less than significant.
Impact 3.9-2: Ground vibration impacts. Implementation of the LTS No mitigation is required. LTS HQCMP would not expose sensitive land uses to unacceptable ground vibration levels. Existing sensitive land uses would be located 50 or more feet from the borders of the project site and the
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-28 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation project would not introduce new sensitive receptors within the project site. The project would not introduce levels of groundborne vibration associated with construction or operational equipment such that existing sensitive receptors would be affected. This impact would therefore be less than significant.
Impact 3.9-3: Operational stationary source noise impacts. LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Operation of land uses under the HQCMP would not generate noise levels that exceed the noise standards established by the City of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance. This impact would therefore be less than significant.
Impact 3.9-4: Operational traffic noise impacts. Additional LTS No mitigation is required. LTS operational traffic levels associated with the project site would not introduce a substantial level of noise (i.e., 3-5 dB) to the project site. This impact would therefore be less than significant.
3.10 Transportation and Circulation
Impact 3.10-1: Intersection level of service impacts. LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Implementation of the HQCMP would increase peak hour traffic volumes but would not cause any intersection operations to degrade to unacceptable levels. This impact would be less than significant.
Impact 3.10-2: Vehicle miles traveled impacts. Implementation of LTS No mitigation is required. LTS the HQCMP would increase total VMT but would not increase daily VMT per service population in the project’s VMT influence area. This impact would be less than significant.
Impact 3.10-3: Impacts to transit facilities. Implementation of the LTS No mitigation is required. LTS HQCMP would increase transit demand for 83 additional commuters seeking to use transit, which can be accommodated within the multiple transit options in the study area. Access to transit is adequately provided by sidewalks and crosswalks on 59th Street,
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-29 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation 65th Street, and Folsom Boulevard that connect transit riders to/from the campus. This impact would be less than significant.
Impact 3.10-4: Impacts to bicycle facilities. Implementation of the PS Mitigation Measure 3.10-4: Contribute fair share fee LTS HQCMP would not interfere with existing or planned bicycle toward planned bicycle improvements. facilities; however, there is a lack of adequate bicycle access to/from Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the HQCMP, SMUD the campus on Folsom Boulevard and 59th Street (south of S shall coordinate with the City of Sacramento to ensure Street) due to the lack of existing bicycle facilities. This impact would adequate contribution of fair share bicycle and pedestrian be potentially significant. improvement fees at the following impacted road segments identified in the City of Sacramento Bicycle Master Plan: • Folsom Boulevard between 57th Street and 59th Street • 59th Street (Folsom Boulevard to South of S Street) SMUD shall coordinate with the City of Sacramento and contribute a fair share contribution toward those improvements based on the projected increase in employee bicycle trips (75) under the HQCMP at buildout. Based on information provided in FHWA’s Capacity Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and assuming a saturation flow rate of 2,000 bicycles/hour, a fair share contribution is estimated to be 3.75% of the estimated cost of the planned improvements along 59th and Folsom Boulevard near the SMUD Headquarters Campus at 20-year buildout. The fair share fee will be determined in accordance with the City of Sacramento's fee formula and at a ratio and phasing commensurate with SMUD's direct project impact on the proposed plan improvement areas.
Impact 3.10-5: Impacts to pedestrian facilities. Implementation of LTS No mitigation is required. LTS the HQCMP would not interfere with any existing or planned pedestrian facilities in the study area, and access for pedestrians is provided by sidewalks along all frontages of the campus. This impact would therefore be less than significant.
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-30 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation
3.11 Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 3.11-1: Require construction of new PS Mitigation Measure 3.11-1: Wastewater management. LTS wastewater/stormwater facilities. Implementation of the HQCMP Prior to development of any phase/component of the HQCMP could result in incremental/periodic increases in demand for that would result in a net increase in stormwater/wastewater, wastewater collection facilities, which, depending on available SMUD shall provide the City’s Department of Utilities with capacity, could cause the need for local infrastructure to be modified sanitary sewer/stormwater studies specific to a specific to accommodate the changes. This impact would be potentially HQCMP-related development for the City’s review and significant. approval. In addition, SMUD shall remit to the City any Combined Sewer Development fees mandated by City Ordinance 2005-020 prior to development. Alternatively, SMUD may conduct a single sanitary sewer study for the entire HQCMP, and then negotiate and pay a one-time fee to the City, based on the net increase and associated size of upgrade needed for the entire HQCMP.
Impact 3.11-2: Impacts on water supply. Implementation of the LTS No mitigation is required. LTS HQCMP would result in a net increase in water demand at the project site. However, the City of Sacramento has available water supplies to accommodate the increased demand without the need for new or expanded entitlements. Impacts would be less than significant.
Impact 3.11-3: Require construction of new/expanded water LTS No mitigation is required. LTS infrastructure. Implementation of the HQCMP would increase water demands at the project site but would not require new or expanded infrastructure. This impact would be less than significant.
Impact 3.11-4: Impacts to solid waste facilities. Construction and LTS No mitigation is required. LTS operation activities under the HQCMP would increase solid waste generation within the project site. However, adequate landfill capacity is available at local and regional landfills to accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-31 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
NI = No impact B = Beneficial LTS = Less than significant PS = Potential significant S = Significant SU = Significant and unavoidable Page ES-32 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
1 Introduction
This draft environmental impact report (EIR) evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Headquarters Campus Master Plan (HQCMP or project). This Draft EIR has been prepared under the direction of SMUD in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000-21177) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387) (“CEQA Guidelines”). SMUD is the lead agency for consideration of this EIR and potential project approval.
1.1 Purpose and Intended Uses of this EIR
CEQA requires that public agencies consider the potentially significant adverse environmental effects of projects over which they have discretionary approval authority before taking action on those projects PRC Section 21000 et seq.). CEQA also requires that each public agency avoid or mitigate to less-than-significant levels, wherever feasible, the significant adverse environmental effects of projects it approves or implements. If a project would result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (i.e., significant effects that cannot be feasibly mitigated to less-than-significant levels), the project can still be approved, but the lead agency’s decision-maker, in this case the SMUD Board of Directors, must prepare findings and issue a “statement of overriding considerations” explaining in writing the specific economic, social, or other considerations that they believe, based on substantial evidence, make those significant effects acceptable (PRC Section 21002, CCR Section 15093).
According to CCR Section 15064(f)(1), preparation of an EIR is required whenever a project may result in a significant adverse environmental impact. An EIR is an informational document used to inform public agency decision makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects, and describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while substantially lessening or avoiding any of the significant environmental impacts. Public agencies are required to consider the information presented in the EIR when determining whether to approve a project.
Because it will carry out the project, SMUD is the lead agency, as defined by CEQA, for this EIR. Other public agencies with jurisdiction over the project are listed below in Section 1.3, “Agency Roles and Responsibilities.”
1.2 Scope of the Draft EIR
This EIR is characterized as a Program EIR prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines. It is intended to be an analytical superstructure for subsequent analyses associated with individual project applications. This EIR describes the existing
Page 1-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
conditions of the SMUD Headquarters Campus, analyzes the potential environmental impacts of the development that may occur under the proposed campus master plan, and identifies mitigation measures where necessary and available to avoid or reduce the magnitude of potentially significant impacts of the proposed plan. The EIR also considers implementation of Phase 1 of the HQCMP at a more detailed level (i.e., project level).
Pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall focus an EIR’s discussion on significant environmental effects and may limit discussion on other effects to brief explanations about why they are not significant (PRC Section 21002.1, CCR Section 15143). A determination of which impacts would be potentially significant was made for this project based on comments received as part of the public scoping process (Appendix A) and review of the information presented in the Initial Study prepared for the project (Appendix B), as well as additional research and analysis of relevant project data during preparation of this Draft EIR. SMUD has determined that the project has the potential to result in significant environmental impacts on the following resources, which are addressed in detail in this Draft EIR:
• Aesthetics • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Air Quality • Hydrology and Water Quality • Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal • Noise Cultural Resources • Transportation and Circulation • Biological Resources • Utilities and Service Systems • Geology and Soils • Mandatory Findings of Significance • Greenhouse Gas Emissions
1.2.1 Effects Found Not to be Significant
CEQA allows a lead agency to limit the detail of discussion of the environmental effects that are not considered potentially significant (PRC Section 21100, CCR Sections 15126.2[a] and 15128). Effects dismissed in an Initial Study as clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur need not be discussed further in the EIR unless the lead agency subsequently receives information inconsistent with the finding in the Initial Study (CCR Section 15143).
Based on comments received as part of the public scoping process (Appendix A) and a review of the information presented in the Initial Study prepared for the project (Appendix B), as well as additional research and analysis of relevant project data during preparation of this Draft EIR, the following were identified as resources that would not experience any significant environmental impacts from the project. Accordingly, these resources are not addressed further in this Draft EIR, but are identified below with a brief explanation, as required by CEQA, as to why significant impacts to each resource are not anticipated.
Page 1-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Agriculture and Forest Resources • Population and Housing • Land Use and Planning • Public Services • Mineral Resources • Recreation
Agriculture and Forest Resources
The project site does not contain any farmland or lands designated as Important Farmland (i.e., Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance). The project site is not zoned for agricultural uses, and there are no Williamson Act contracts associated with the project site. Additionally, the project site does not include forest land or timberlands, nor is it zoned for such uses. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of agricultural/forest land or conversion of agricultural/forest land to non-agricultural/forest use, nor would it conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, agricultural/forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
For the reasons above, the project would not result in significant impacts related to agriculture and forest resources and this issue is not discussed further.
Land Use and Planning
The project site is designated Public/Quasi-Public, Employment Center Low Rise and Urban Center Low in the Sacramento 2035 General Plan Update, which allows for utility uses, consistent with those existing on the site. Existing development is also consistent with onsite zoning of Heavy Commercial Zone (C-4), Light Industrial (M-1), General Commercial with Transit Overlay (C-2 TO) and Standard Single Family (R-1), which provides for warehousing, distribution activities, and limited commercial uses. The proposed HQCMP would potentially involve a reorganization of SMUD’s administrative, customer service, and other supporting facility space. The proposed project could include the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of new buildings at the previously-developed campus, but would not change the land uses within campus; therefore, the continued utility and warehouse uses on the site would remain consistent with the Sacramento 2035 General Plan Update. As noted above, there are no adopted habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans that overlap with the project site. The project, therefore, would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan.
For the reasons above, the project would not result in significant impacts related to land use and planning, and this issue is not discussed further.
Page 1-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Mineral Resources
The project site is entirely developed and located in an urbanized area of Sacramento that has been developed with existing commercial uses since 1960. The continuation of commercial uses is consistent with the City’s land use and general plan designations. No known mineral deposits are present on the project site or in the vicinity of the project site. Due to the lack of known mineral deposits in the area, project implementation would not result in a loss of availability of locally important mineral resources or a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.
For the reasons above, the project would not result in significant impacts related to mineral resources, and this issue is not discussed further.
Population and Housing
The project would not include construction of new housing or commercial business. Therefore, no direct population growth would result from project implementation. The project would also not extend roads or other infrastructure to new areas that would induce growth in new locations. Further, no persons or homes would be displaced as a result of implementation or operation of the proposed project.
For the reasons above, the project would not result in significant impacts related to population and housing, and this issue is not discussed further.
Public Services
Implementation of the project would not increase demand for fire or police protection services such that the construction of new or expansion of existing fire or police service facilities would be required. The project does not include a residential component that would increase demand for services nor would it increase the service boundary of any existing public service providers. As noted above, the project would not provide any new housing that would generate new students in the community or a need for new or expanded park facilities. For the reasons above, the project would not result in significant impacts related to public services, and this issue is not discussed further.
Recreation
The project would not involve any changes to permitted uses of existing recreational facilities, nor would it require the construction of new recreational facilities or the expansion of existing ones that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Thus, the project would not result in potentially significant impacts related to recreation, and this issue is not discussed further.
Page 1-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
1.3 Agency Roles and Responsibilities
This Draft EIR will be used by SMUD and CEQA responsible and trustee agencies to ensure that they have met their requirements under CEQA before deciding whether to approve or permit project elements over which they have jurisdiction. It may also be used by other state and local agencies, which may have an interest in resources that could be affected by the project, or that have jurisdiction over portions of the project.
As the lead agency pursuant to CEQA, SMUD is responsible for considering the adequacy of the EIR and determining if the project should be approved.
Under CEQA, a responsible agency is a public agency, other than the lead agency, that has responsibility to carry out or approve a project (PRC Section 21069). A trustee agency is a state agency that has jurisdiction by law over natural resources that are held in trust for the people of the State of California (PRC Section 21070).
The following agencies may serve as responsible and trustee agencies for the project:
State
• California Department of Transportation, District 3
• California State Office of Historic Preservation
• State Water Resources Control Board/Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Local
• City of Sacramento
• Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
1.4 CEQA Public Review Process
1.4.1 Notice of Preparation
The purpose of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) is to provide sufficient information about the project and its potential environmental impacts to allow agencies and interested parties the opportunity to provide a meaningful response related to the scope and content of the EIR, including mitigation measures that should be considered and alternatives that should be addressed (CCR Section 15082[b]). Comments submitted in response to the NOP are used by the lead agency to identify broad topics to be addressed in the EIR.
Page 1-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
In accordance with PRC Section 21092 and CCR Section 15082, SMUD issued an NOP on September 19, 2017 to inform agencies and the general public that an EIR was being prepared and to invite comments on the scope and content of the document (Appendix A). The NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, which then distributed the NOP to potential responsible and trustee agencies; posted it on SMUD’s website (https://www.smud.org/en/Corporate/About-us/Company-Information/Reports- and-Statements/CEQA-Reports); posted it with the Sacramento County Clerk; and made it available at SMUD’s offices. In addition, the NOP was distributed directly to property owners within 500 feet of the project site, interested Native American Tribes, and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (which has requested to be notified of SMUD’s projects). Finally, notice was published in the Sacramento Bee on Tuesday, September 19, 2017. The NOP was circulated for a 30-day review period, with comments accepted through October 18, 2017.
In accordance with CCR Section 15082(c), a noticed scoping meeting for the EIR occurred on September 27, 2017 at the SMUD Customer Service Center in Sacramento, CA.
Comments on environmental issues received during the NOP public comment period are considered and addressed in this Draft EIR. Appendix A contains the comment letters submitted during the NOP public comment period. A summary of the comments received by SMUD related to the NOP is as follows.
Table 1-1 Comment Letters and Discussion Location in Draft EIR Addressed in Draft EIR NOP Comment Letter Comment/Topic Section Letter 1 Cultural Resources Section 3.3, Archaeological, United Auburn Indian 1. Requests copies of archaeological reports Historic, and Tribal Cultural Community and environmental documents. Resources October 6, 2017 2. Recommends tribal representative observes the cultural resource survey. 3. Requests the opportunity to provide Tribal representatives to monitor project excavation. Letter 2 Hydrology and Water Quality Refer to Appendix B, Initial Central Valley Regional 1. Regulatory considerations including Basin Plan Study Water Quality Control and Antidegradation Policy. Board 2. Permitting requirements including Construction General Permit, MS4, Section 404, Section 401, waste discharge, and NPDES. Letter 3 Transportation Section 3.7, Transportation Department of 1. A traffic impact study should be conducted. and Circulation Transportation District 3 2. Project work that requires movement of oversized or excessive loads on State highways required a permit. 3. Any work that that would encroach onto the State right-of-way requires and encroachment permit.
Page 1-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
1.4.2 Initial Study
An Initial Study was prepared for the project to determine the scope of the Draft EIR, and is included as Appendix B.
1.4.3 Public Review of this Draft EIR
This Draft EIR is being circulated for a 45-day period of review and comment by the public and other interested parties, agencies, and organizations. A public meeting will be held on May 9, 2018 to receive input from agencies and the public on the Draft EIR. Copies of the Draft EIR are available online at https://www.smud.org/en/Corporate/About-us/Company-Information/Reports-and- Statements/CEQA-Reports and hardcopies at the following locations for review:
Sacramento Municipal Utility District Sacramento Municipal Utility District Customer Service Center East Campus Operations Center 6301 S Street 4401 Bradshaw Road Sacramento, CA 95817 Sacramento, CA 95827
During the public comment period, written comments from the public as well as organizations and agencies on the Draft EIR’s accuracy and completeness may be submitted to SMUD. Written comments (including via email) must be received by 5:00 p.m. on June 4, 2018 Written comments should be addressed to:
SMUD–Environmental Services P.O. Box 15830 MS H201 Sacramento, CA 95852-1830 Attn: Rob Ferrera Email comments may be addressed to [email protected].
1.4.4 Final EIR
After the end of the public comment period, responses to comments on environmental issues will be prepared. Consistent with CCR Section 15088(b), commenting agencies will be provided a minimum of 10 days to review the proposed responses to their comments before any action is taken on the Final EIR or project. The Final EIR (containing this Draft EIR and the Responses to Comments document) will then be considered for certifications and approval by SMUD’s Board of Directors. If the Board finds that the Final EIR is “adequate and complete,” the Board may certify the Final EIR in accordance with CEQA. The rule of adequacy generally holds that an EIR can be certified if:
1. The EIR shows a good faith effort at full disclosure of environmental information; and
2. The EIR provides sufficient analysis to allow decisions to be made regarding the proposed project with consideration given to its environmental impacts.
Page 1-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The level of detail contained throughout this EIR is consistent with CCR Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines and recent court decisions, which provide the standard of adequacy on which this document is based. The Guidelines states as follows:
An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of the environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.
CEQA requires that when a public agency makes findings based on an EIR, the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for those measures it has adopted or made a condition of the project approval to mitigate significant adverse effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.
1.5 Organization of the Draft EIR
The organization of this Draft EIR is as follows:
• Executive Summary – This chapter introduces the proposed HQCMP project; provides a summary of the environmental review process, effects found not to be significant, and key environmental issues; and lists significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to a less-than-significant level.
• Chapter 1: Introduction – This chapter describes the purpose, proposed project, process, scope, and comments of this EIR. This chapter also gives a brief outline of this document’s organization.
• Chapter 2: Project Description – This chapter goes into more detail on what the proposed HQCMP would entail as well as a description of the location, background, objectives, and characteristics of the proposed HQCMP.
• Chapter 3: Existing Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation – This chapter describes and evaluates a total of 12 environmental issue areas, including presentation of applicable thresholds of significance, environmental impacts, policy considerations related to the environmental issue area being analyzed, and mitigation measures capable of avoiding or reducing the magnitude of otherwise significant impacts.
Page 1-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Chapter 4: Cumulative Impacts – This chapter discusses the potential cumulative impacts that would result from implementation of the project together with other past, present and probable future projects and including whether the project’s incremental increase to an already significant impact is cumulatively considerable.
• Chapter 5: Other CEQA Sections – As required under CEQA, this chapter provides additional analysis of environmental effects that could result from implementation of the proposed HQCMP, including effects found not to be significant, growth-inducing impacts, significant irreversible changes to the environment, and significant and unavoidable impacts.
• Chapter 6: Alternatives – This chapter presents and analyzes a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed HQCMP, including a No Project Alternative, a Maximum Preservation Alternative, a Reduced Campus Acreage Alternative, and an Off-Site Alternative.
• Chapter 7: EIR Authors and Persons Consulted – This chapter identifies all individuals responsible for the preparation of this EIR.
• Chapter 8: References – Lists the sources of information cited throughout this EIR.
Page 1-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 1-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
2 Project Description 2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents a detailed description of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Headquarters Campus Master Plan (HQCMP or project) located in Sacramento, California. It is SMUD’s goal for the HQCMP to provide strategic direction and long-term planning over the next 20 years and, in turn, to support streamlined development and maintenance of SMUD’s Headquarters Campus. This chapter describes the project’s location, background, objectives, project components, and anticipated schedule for construction and operation.
2.2 Project Location
The SMUD Headquarters Campus (project site) is located in Sacramento, California and is entirely owned and operated by SMUD (Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2). The project site is bounded by 59th Street to the west, 65th Street to the east, Folsom Boulevard to the north, and S Street to the south (Exhibit 2-3). The Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) light rail transit (LRT) track alignment bisects the site and forms a portion of the site’s northern border. The total HQCMP area is approximately 38 acres, with approximately 10 acres north of the SacRT track alignment and 28 acres south of the alignment.
While it is owned and operated by SMUD, the East City Substation, which is located immediately northeast of the HQCMP area, is not part of the HQCMP or project site. An additional 16 acres currently owned by SMUD is located across 59th Street to the east. This area is being considered separately and is also not part of the HQCMP area.
2.3 Project Setting
2.3.1 Site Description
The 38-acre project site is completely developed with a mix of building types and styles, various roads and parking lots, pedestrian paths, and extensive landscaped areas. Currently, six active structures occupy the Headquarters Campus, providing approximately 437,000 square feet (sf) of space for utility and office functions. The primary buildings on the campus are described below.
Headquarters Building – The Headquarters Building, located on S Street west of the SMUD Customer Service Center, houses SMUD’s headquarters and supports SMUD operations. The building is occupied by SMUD Board members, management, and office staff. Public interaction is generally limited to attending Board meetings and the use of the community meeting rooms after hours. The building includes 132,000 sf of office space and 74 parking spaces. The Headquarters Building is currently undergoing renovations, including preserving the historical features; upgrading mechanical, plumbing, and electrical systems; and meeting fire, seismic, and Americans with Disabilities Act codes. The current building and site renovations are scheduled to be completed in 2019.
Page 2-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 2-1 Project Location
Page 2-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 2-2 Project Vicinity
Page 2-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 2-3 Existing Campus Layout - Aerial
Page 2-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Former Kramer property – Located between the Headquarters Building and the Childcare Center, the former Kramer property was purchased by SMUD in 2016. Demolition of the former Kramer Carton building was completed in September of 2017 and the property is being prepared for temporary use (i.e., portable offices/trailers) during rehabilitation of the adjacent Headquarters Building.
Childcare Center – The Childcare Center is located on S Street, east of 59th Street, and has been in continuous operation for more than 25 years through the services of a vender. Enrollment is open to both employees and the general public. Child care services for approximately 100 children are housed in a 5,400-sf modular building with an adjacent play yard.
Auxiliary Building – Located north of the Childcare Center, a 50,000-sf Auxiliary Building is occupied by SMUD staff. Much of the building is used for essential equipment and support staff. A communications tower, approximately 150 feet in height, is located immediately adjacent to the Auxiliary Building.
SMUD Customer Service Center – Located at the corner of 65th and S streets, the Customer Service Center, is approximately 177,000 sf in size and is currently occupied by office staff who directly interact with the general public, including cashiers for customers paying electrical bills, call center public training, education, and meeting rooms. A wellness/fitness center (approximately 5,500 sf in size) is located adjacent to the northwestern portion of the Customer Service Center.
Central Plant – The 17,000-sf Central Plant is located in the middle of the Headquarters Campus, north of the SacRT track alignment. The facility currently provides a maintenance shop and centralized utility control service for the Headquarters Campus. Currently, there are three chillers and associated cooling towers, as well as three large boilers supplemented by three small boilers. Some chemicals (including biocides and corrosion inhibitors for cooling/chilling operations) are stored on-site and are stored in accordance with applicable safety/storage requirements.
Field Reporting Facility – The 50,000-sf Field Reporting Facility (FRF) is also located in the middle of the Headquarters Campus, north of the SacRT track alignment and west of the Central Plant. The facility currently provides office/work space for staff. In addition to workstations, the FRF has employee meeting and training rooms that are used by all departments, SMUD’s mail room, and SMUD’s print shop.
Site Parking
Beyond the 74 podium parking spaces located within the Headquarters Building, the majority of parking opportunities (approximately 1,525 spaces) throughout the existing Headquarters Campus are located within surface parking lots.
Page 2-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
2.3.2 Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is located within a predominantly commercial/utility (including a California Department of Transportation yard and two shopping centers) area. U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) is located to the south of the project site, with residential (single- and multi-family) uses to the north, northeast, and across US 50 to the south.
2.4 Project History
SMUD was formed in 1923 and at that time, its boundaries encompassed approximately 75 square miles. SMUD then proceeded with efforts to purchase Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) local distribution system through condemnation. This sparked 23 years of lawsuits between SMUD and PG&E. During that period, SMUD was forced to purchase electricity from other companies and agencies because it did not produce any power on its own. Litigation between the two companies ended in 1946 when the courts ruled against PG&E, forcing PG&E to finally sell its distribution system to SMUD.
The tremendous population boom in the Sacramento region after World War II strained SMUD’s system and SMUD needed to expand its programs. In 1955, voters approved a revenue bond needed to finance the Upper American River Project, a substantial hydroelectric development largely within the Eldorado National Forest. When the Upper American River Project was completed, it generated power for 250,000 customers.
Also in 1955, SMUD hired the New York consulting firm Ebasco Services, Inc. (Ebasco) to conduct an extensive study of SMUD’s space requirements for its present use and future growth. SMUD facilities included an operations yard at 59th and R streets and an office at 21st and K streets; Ebasco recommended consolidating SMUD’s facilities into one location. Ebasco estimated that 35 acres of land would be needed for both the operations yard and an office building. In 1956, SMUD hired the local architectural firm Dreyfuss & Blackford to design its Headquarters Building. SMUD directed the architects to visit new corporate campuses constructed in the Midwest and East Coast, particularly works by famed architects Mies Van der Rohe, Victor Gruen, and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill. In December 1956, SMUD purchased the land for the site of the new campus, which is the current project site.
2.5 Project Objectives
The HQCMP is intended as a 20-year development plan for the SMUD Headquarters Campus. Project objectives include:
• Provide strategic direction and long-term planning framework over the next 20 years, which would support streamlined development and ongoing maintenance of SMUD’s Headquarters Campus.
• Foster development of a campus befitting SMUD’s physical and historical setting as part of the Sacramento region and which is compatible with the City of Sacramento
Page 2-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
General Plan, the proposed 59th Street Re-Use Project, and planned improvements along 65th Street by the City of Sacramento.
• Consolidate and modernize SMUD resources based on current space needs.
• Promote alternatives to individual, fossil-fuel automobile transportation and promote pedestrian connectivity.
• Improve connectivity between and with the local and regional community while maintaining SMUD’s security needs as an essential utility service in the Sacramento region.
• Establish design guidelines that will provide recommendations to create a compelling and unifying design vision for the campus.
2.6 Required Public Approvals
Elements of the project could be subject to permitting and/or approval authority of other agencies. As the lead agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, SMUD is responsible for considering the adequacy of the environmental impact report (EIR) and determining if the project should be approved. Other potential permits required from other agencies could include:
State
• State Water Resources Control Board/Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board: construction storm water discharge permits.
• California Department of Transportation: permits for movement of oversized or excessive loads on State Highways.
Local
• Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District: Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate pursuant to Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Regulation 2 (Rule 201 et seq.).
• City of Sacramento:
Planning review – to comply with the City of Sacramento Zoning Ordinance and development standards.
Tree removal permit—to comply with the City of Sacramento Tree Ordinance.
Building permits—to comply with Sacramento City Code requirements.
Encroachment permit.
Page 2-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Off-site improvement plans.
2.7 Project Description
The HQCMP is intended as a plan for the enhancement of SMUD’s Headquarters Campus that takes into account all of the features needed to make a complete campus that maximizes operating efficiency of various SMUD departments and improves the interaction of the Headquarters Campus with the surrounding neighborhoods. The underlying elements of the HQCMP include:
• Provision of a safe and secure campus security “perimeter” clearly delineating public use spaces and employee only areas using natural landscaped barriers and leveraging crime prevention through environmental design strategies.
• Development of a more prominent urban edge with improved signage and landscaping.
• Enhancement of the existing network of pathways and sidewalks to provide continuous, and safe, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity.
• Enrichment of the pedestrian environment, with new landscaped open space and improved outdoor amenities, including seating, shade trees, and outdoor collaboration spaces.
• Improvement of SMUD’s interface with the 59th Street LRT station by providing a highly visible multi-modal hub with direct access to customer services uses.
• Improvement of internal vehicular circulation patterns and onsite parking opportunities through the use of a variety of traffic-calming measures, multi-modal campus street design, redesign of a majority of surface vehicular parking adjacent to the SacRT LRT line, and activating open space at the center of the Headquarters Campus.
• Efficient design of buildings to accommodate the anticipated increase in the number of employees and needed square footage over the next 20 years at the SMUD Headquarters Campus.
2.7.1 Establishment of Districts
The HQCMP would organize the Headquarters Campus into eight distinct districts, as shown in Exhibit 2-4, that are characterized by their location, utility, facilities, and development opportunities. The following describes the key features and characteristics of each district and the proposed actions and design concepts intended to preserve, enhance, or optimize each of the districts.
Page 2-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 2-4 Districts
Page 2-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
District 1: Innovation District—The Innovation District is a trapezoidal-shaped, 3.82-acre area located between 59th and S streets and the 59th Street SacRT LRT station. It currently contains the Auxiliary Building and Childcare Center. This district is intended to provide a more consistent public interface with the adjacent community because of its adjacency to the SacRT LRT station and a contemplated mixed-use community across 59th Street. Uses to be provided in this district would include customer services, business-incubating services, flexible meeting space, and community serving uses such as public parking, outdoor gathering space, and a public mobility hub.
• District 2: Learning/Utility District—The Learning/Utility District is a trapezoidal- shaped, 4.73-acre area between 61st and S streets and the SacRT LRT line. Currently, only an electric vehicle charging station is located along S Street. This district is intended to increase operational efficiency of the Headquarters Campus and SMUD operations with a mix of corporate training, office, mail processing, printing, and warehouse uses.
• District 3: Headquarters District—The Headquarters District is 11.58 acres in size and is dominated by the Headquarters Building, landscaping, and parking. The Headquarters Building is currently undergoing a major renovation, which will be completed in 2019 and will extend the life of the building, which is a designated historic structure. This district is intended to maintain and respect the Headquarters Building and its associated landscaping for its historical significance while providing essential office space for SMUD employees.
• District 4: Campus Core District—Located to the northwest of the Corporate Center, the Campus Core District is 2.16 acres in size and is currently occupied by the Fitness Center, which is attached to the Corporate Center (former Customer Service Center), and surface parking. This district is intended to provide enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectivity between HQCMP facilities and to provide SMUD employees with amenity and gathering functions in a convenient location close to the Headquarters Building and the Corporate Center, the two primary office spaces within the HQCMP.
• District 5: Corporate Center District—The Corporate Center District is 4.83 acres in size and is wholly comprised of the former Customer Service Center, surface parking, and landscaping. The Corporate Center District provides the greatest level of public visibility (from US 50 and 65th Street). This district is intended to provide primarily internal professional and corporate office space, rather than customer interface. Customer serving functions will be relocated to the Innovation District.
• District 6: Highway 50 District—The Highway 50 District is a 0.74-acre triangular site that abuts US 50 and consists of surface parking currently. The parking area is currently utilized by SMUD customers but is intended to be transitioned to SMUD employee parking with improved connection points.
Page 2-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• District 7: Auxiliary District—The 6.97-acre Auxiliary District is located immediately north of the SacRT LRT line and is currently occupied by the FRF, temporary offices, the Central Plant, and surface parking. Under the HQCMP, a portion of this district would be redeveloped with a new Auxiliary Building (currently located within District 1) but would also include the FRF (retained in place) and modernized Central Plant (see below for further details). Additional facilities within this district may include additional parking facilities and site security measures. Portions of the Auxiliary District are underutilized and could be redeveloped with SMUD office uses or divested for non-SMUD uses.
• District 8: Folsom Boulevard District—The Folsom Boulevard District is 2.67 acres in size and encompasses the entirety of SMUD’s frontage along Folsom Boulevard. Currently, the district is currently used to access the Headquarters Campus and provide a wood-chip pick-up location for the local community. Under the HQCMP, access would be improved with an additional vehicle access point for employees. Similar to the Auxiliary District, portions of this district are underutilized and could be either redeveloped or divested. Under the HQCMP, it is considered a flex space that could be adapted to respond to a potential future need for SMUD.
Each of these districts are described in further detail in Chapter 4 of the HQCMP.
2.7.2 Anticipated Land Uses
Almost all of the land within the project site is developed with utility-related uses (predominantly offices). Opportunities for additional development are limited and are primarily confined to the redevelopment of existing facilities within the project site. The proposed HQCMP preserves the existing circulation network (i.e., surrounding streets) and establishes policies intended to enhance the interface between the Headquarters Campus and established neighborhoods. Proposed changes in the type or intensity of land use focus exclusively on the streamlining and improving of existing SMUD operations and providing a clear point of public interface. These proposed land use designation changes are intended to allow development of uses and features that are beneficial to the community and make the Headquarters Campus a more sustainable place to work.
Table 2-1 identifies the existing, proposed, and potential net changes in land uses and development within the project site that would occur as a result of implementation of the HQCMP. As shown in this table, the Headquarters Campus currently provides approximately 437,000 sf of SMUD-related uses, including office space, the Childcare Center, the Central Plant, and SMUD IT/communications equipment. As shown in Exhibit 2-5 and noted above, much of the western and northern portions of the project site would be redeveloped under the HQCMP, resulting in a net increase of 140,100 sf of SMUD- related uses. Much of the project site located north of the SacRT alignment would be left vacant, except for the existing Central Plant, FRF, and relocated Auxiliary Building. The existing communications tower would also be relocated to the northern portion of the project site, adjacent to the Auxiliary Building. Customer interaction would be shifted from
Page 2-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 the Customer Service Center to the Community Energy/Innovation Center that would be located at the northeast corner of S and 59th streets. Additionally, and for the purposes of this EIR, up to 80,000 sf of additional office space is assumed within the flex space associated with the Folsom Boulevard District, as shown in Exhibit 2-5.
Table 2-1 HQCMP Development Summary (Existing and Proposed) Existing Proposed Structure/Facility Floor Number of Floor Number of Notes Area (sf) Floors Area (sf) Floors SMUD Corporate Shedding of customer-facing Center (formerly services, building rebranding and 177,000 4 197,000 4 Customer Service 20,000-sf addition to southeast Center) corner of structure. No physical changes anticipated, Headquarters Building 132,000 5 132,000 5 although interior operations may shift. Fitness Center 5,500 1 5,500 1 No physical changes anticipated. Modernization/ Redevelopment/ Central Plant 17,000 1 17,000 1 Redistribution of existing operations within existing footprint. Childcare Center 5,400 1 -- -- Field Reporting 50,000 2 50,000 2 Facility Facility would be redeveloped north Auxiliary Building 50,000 2 50,000 2 of SacRT track alignment. Community Customer interface would shift from Energy/Innovation 48,000 3 SMUD Customer Service Center to Center this facility. Intended for training of SMUD staff Learning Center 52,500 2 and contractors. Includes additional warehouse space. Utility Building 25,000 1 There are no specific planned uses within the Folsom Boulevard District Folsom Boulevard Up to 2 under the HQCMP. However, this Flex Space 80,000 EIR assumes that up to 80,000-sf of office space could be developed. Subtotal 436,900 1-5 657,000 1-5 Potential Net Increase 220,100 Source: SMUD 2018
Upon completion of the Community Energy/Innovation Center, it is the intent that the majority of customer service functions currently conducted in the Customer Service Center would be relocated to the Community Energy/Innovation Center; and the Customer Service Center would be rebranded as the SMUD Corporate Center.
Page 2-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 2-5 Conceptual Land Plan
Page 2-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
2.7.3 Employment
Currently, the Headquarters Campus provides employment for approximately 1,400 employees that live in the Sacramento region. Under the HQCMP, the number of on-site employees, including contract employees, could increase up to 2,235, an increase of approximately 835 employees. Some of these employees may be located within the flex space in the Folsom Boulevard District identified above.
Security
Implementation of the HQCMP would provide more strategic placement of public interfacing uses, employee serving uses, and critical assets. Part of this involves relocating the public-interfacing uses within the western portion of the Headquarters Campus, which, because of its adjacency to the 59th Street SacRT LRT station and a future mixed-use development, would provide opportunities for increased public activity. The strategic placement of these uses would allow this portion of the Headquarters Campus to remain more open to the public while allowing for increased security for the remainder of the Headquarters Campus.
2.7.4 Parking
Consistent with the Sacramento Planning and Development Code (i.e., 1 space per 500 sf for office uses and 1 space per 1,000 sf for industrial uses), the Headquarters Campus would require a minimum of 1,025 parking spaces based on the anticipated square footage with implementation of the HQCMP, not including the assumption for up to 80,000 sf of additional office space within the Folsom Boulevard District. The HQCMP would provide a minimum of 1,025 spaces campus-wide, consistent with Sacramento Planning and Development Code requirements. However, the actual parking requirements would be reviewed during the City of Sacramento design review and entitlement process. With respect to the Folsom Boulevard flex space area, any additional parking needs associated with development of this area would be provided within the flex space, itself, and in accordance with Sacramento Development Code requirements.
2.7.5 Circulation Plan
One of the design elements of the HQCMP is on improvements to S Street and the internal roadway network of the Headquarters Campus. Under the HQCMP, certain entrances would be eliminated (e.g., along 59th Street) or reconfigured (e.g., the entrance at 65th Street would be limited to emergency access only), while internal intersections would be enhanced at key locations for improved vehicular access and safer pedestrian movement. All employee entrances to the Headquarters Campus would be gated under the HQCMP. Customer/visitor entrance would be provided along S Street, east of the proposed Community Energy/Innovation Center.
Page 2-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The interior roadways that provide north-south connections between the on-site parking areas and S Street would employ a shared-street design concept (i.e., narrowing of roadways to approximately 16 feet of space for shared use by automobiles and bicycles). The roadway edge would accommodate walkers and joggers with appropriate walkways and paths and have the option for additional landscaping, parallel parking, drop-off areas, or gathering spaces. The roadways and adjacent edge pathways would be paved with either a decorative concrete or pavers to reinforce the shared nature of the space.
Parallel with the SacRT line, the existing east-west transportation corridor would be improved to accommodate two rows of parking and a two-way drive aisle to accommodate automobile traffic. South of the parking area, dedicated pedestrian and bicycle paths would accommodate a variety of active transportation uses. Potential active transportation facility options include a dedicated sidewalk for access to the various SMUD buildings and outdoor spaces, a decomposed granite (or similar material) running path for fitness activities, and/or a bike path to accommodate bicycle travel internal to the Headquarters Campus.
2.7.6 Landscaping
The HQCMP includes a landscape and open space plan to expand amenities with the intent of increasing the quality of life on-campus through provision of greater opportunities for gathering and greater comfort within outdoor spaces. With implementation of the HQCMP, existing mature landscape resources would be preserved while landscaping in certain locations would be expanded to create larger, contiguous “green zones.” The creation of a signature open space in the center of the project site between the Headquarters Building and the Corporate Center as well as increased collaboration and functional open spaces distributed around the Headquarters Campus, would allow for increased interaction and outdoor activity. SMUD is preparing an Urban Forestry Plan for the Headquarters Campus as part of separate effort to optimize solar exposure where appropriate (e.g., for solar panels), as well as passive shading of on-site structures and gathering places.
2.7.7 Central Plant
As part of the HQCMP, the Central Plant would be redeveloped/ modernized to provide for greater efficiency, both in terms of equipment and operations within the facility. The Central Plant has three chillers and associated cooling towers, as well as three large boilers supplemented by three small boilers. Under the HQCMP, the existing equipment would be replaced and the structure modernized to provide for more efficient use of the facility and operations and maintenance activities at the Headquarters Campus. No increase in the footprint/square footage of the Central Plant is anticipated, although the current distribution of uses (office, maintenance shop, and plant equipment) within the Central Plant may change. Currently, the three uses are evenly distributed, but the proportions could be modified to maximize efficiency. Additionally, SMUD is considering
Page 2-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 the installation of heat-recovery chillers and low-grade-heating and/or thermal-solar heating-hot-water thermal energy storage tanks to provide greater energy efficiency.
2.7.8 Phasing and Monitoring
In addition to the goals and actions identified above, the HQCMP is intended as a “living” plan. The HQCMP allows SMUD to monitor/adjust the plan and to phase development within the Headquarters Campus over the course of the next 20 years. It provides flexibility for changes in the industry, as well as changes in the region’s needs for utility service, as they affect SMUD’s spacing and management needs. It also establishes criteria and measurements for periodically assessing how well the HQCMP’s goals are being met and if adjustments to the policies are necessary. Table 2-2 and Exhibit 2-6 present the currently anticipated phasing of development under the HQCMP.
Table 2-2 HQCMP Phasing Plan Timeframe Phase Construction Demolition (years) a. Central Plant modernization a. Modular buildings 1 1-4 b. Auxiliary Building b. Landscaping (along Jan c. Pedestrian pathways Schori Drive) a. Community Energy/Innovation Center a. Childcare Center b. Parking (Innovation and Learning/Utility b. Landscaping (Innovation Districts) District) 2 5-8 c. EV Charging Facility (Innovation c. former Kramer Carton District) building pad d. Entry monument e. Public mobility hub1 a. Campus Core District outdoor plaza a. Power house trailer b. North-south internal drives from S b. Parking (Corporate Center) 3 9-12 Street c. Northern covered parking c. Parking along south side of LRT line d. S Street improvements a. Utility Building a. Auxiliary Building b. Parking (Innovation District - previous 4 13-16 location of Auxiliary Building) c. Security (Innovation District) a. Learning Center a. Western covered parking 5 17-20 b. Corporate Center expansion c. Employee mobility hub1 Notes: 1 SMUD may choose to accelerate the development of the mobility hubs in response to the need of autonomous vehicles or other such factors. Source: SMUD 2018
Page 2-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 2-6 Phasing Plan
Page 2-17 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
As noted in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” of this EIR, in addition to the programmatic evaluation of the entire HQCMP, evaluates implementation of Phase 1 at a project-level. This would include modernization of the existing Central Plant, construction of a new auxiliary building, and installation of new pedestrian pathways within the campus.
Due to spacing considerations within the project site, the level of development that can be accomplished at any one time is limited to the availability of space elsewhere within SMUD facilities to accommodate temporarily displaced offices and facilities. As a result, it is anticipated that no more than approximately 50,000 sf of new construction would occur at any given time as a result of HQCMP implementation. The HQCMP establishes five construction phases for the 20-year build-out.
Page 2-18 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3 Existing Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
This chapter is organized by environmental resource category; each resource category is organized to provide an integrated discussion of the existing environmental conditions (including regulatory setting and environmental setting), potential environmental effects (including direct and indirect impacts), and measures to reduce significant effects, where feasible, associated with implementation of the Headquarters Campus Master Plan (HQCMP).
Cumulative and growth-inducing impacts are discussed in Chapters 4, “Cumulative Impacts,” and 5, “Other CEQA Sections,” respectively.
Introduction to the Analysis
In accordance with Section 15126.2 of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) identifies and focuses on the significant direct and indirect environmental effects of the project, giving due consideration to both its short-term and its long-term effects. Short-term effects are generally those associated with construction, and long-term effects are generally those associated with HQCMP operations. As described in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” this analysis focuses on a limited number of environmental resource topics because other topics have already been addressed in the Initial Study (see Appendix B).
The remainder of this chapter addresses the following resource topics:
• Section 3.1, Aesthetic and Visual Resources • Section 3.2, Air Quality • Section 3.3, Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources • Section 3.4, Biological Resources • Section 3.5, Geology and Soils • Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy • Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality • Section 3.9, Noise and Vibration • Section 3.10, Transportation and Circulation • Section 3.11, Utilities and Service Systems
Sections 3.1 through 3.11 follow the same general format:
Regulatory Setting gives a summary of regulations, plans, policies, and laws that are relevant to the environmental effects in each resource section. Regulations originating from the federal, state, and local levels are each discussed as appropriate.
Environmental Setting presents the existing environmental conditions on the project site and surrounding area as appropriate, in accordance with the State CEQA
Page 3-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15125). This setting generally serves as the baseline against which environmental impacts are evaluated. The extent of the environmental setting area evaluated (the project study area) differs among resources, depending on the locations where impacts would be expected. For example, air quality impacts are assessed for the air basin (macroscale) as well as the site vicinity (microscale), whereas noise impacts are assessed for the project site vicinity only.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures identifies the thresholds of significance used to determine the level of significance of the environmental impacts for each resource topic, in accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Sections 15126, 15126.2, and 15143). The thresholds of significance used in this Draft EIR are based on the checklist presented in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines; best available data; and regulatory standards of federal, state, and local agencies. The level of each impact is determined by comparing the effects of the project to the environmental setting. Key methods and assumptions used to frame and conduct the impact analysis as well as issues or potential impacts not discussed further (such issues for which the project would have no impact) are also described.
Project impacts are organized numerically in each subsection (e.g., Impact 3.1-1, Impact 3.1-2, Impact 3.1-3, etc.). A bold-font impact statement, a summary of each impact, and its level of significance precedes the discussion of each impact. The discussion that follows the impact summary includes the substantial evidence supporting the impact significance conclusion.
The Draft EIR must describe any feasible measures that could avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate for significant adverse impacts, and the measures are to be fully enforceable through incorporation in and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6[b]). Mitigation measures are not required for effects that are found to be less than significant. Where feasible mitigation for a significant impact is available, it is described following the impact along with its effectiveness at addressing the impact. Each identified mitigation measure is labeled numerically to correspond with the number of the impact that would be mitigated by the measure. Where sufficient feasible mitigation is not available to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, or where SMUD lacks the authority to ensure that the mitigation is implemented when needed, the impacts are identified as remaining “significant and unavoidable.”
Terminology Used In the EIR
This Draft EIR uses the following terms to describe the level of significance of impacts identified during the environmental analysis:
Significant and Unavoidable Impact: An impact that exceeds the defined threshold of significance and cannot be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of feasible mitigation measures.
Page 3-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Potentially Significant Impact: An impact that exceeds the defined thresholds of significance, and can be reduced to a less than significant level through implementation of feasible mitigation measures. If feasible mitigation measures are not available or would not reduce the magnitude of the impact below the threshold of significance, the impact would be determined significant and unavoidable.
Less-than-Significant Impact: An impact that does not exceed the defined thresholds of significance or that is potentially significant and can be eliminated or reduced to a less than significant through implementation of feasible mitigation measures.
No Impact: Where an environmental issue is evaluated and it is determined that the project would have no effect on the issue, the conclusion is drawn that the proposed SMUD HQCMP would have “No Impact” and no further analysis is presented.
Cumulative Impacts: According to CEQA, “cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15355). CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be discussed when the “project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable… [or] … provide a basis for concluding that the incremental effect is not cumulatively considerable (CEQA Guidelines, CCR Section 15130 (a)).”
Mitigation Measures: The CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15370) define mitigation as: a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree of magnitude of the action and its implementation;
c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment;
d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and
e) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
Page 3-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.1 Aesthetic and Visual Resources
Visual resources are the natural and human-built features of the landscape that can be seen and that contribute to an attractive landscape appearance and the public’s enjoyment of the environment.
This section describes the existing visual characteristics and conditions in the project and surrounding area and provides an assessment of changes to those conditions that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Effects of the project on the visual environment are generally defined in terms of the project’s physical characteristics and the potential visibility of those changes, the extent to which the project would change the perceived visual character and quality of the visual environment where it is located, and the expected level of sensitivity that the viewing public may have in an area where the project would alter existing views. The discussion below, under “Methods and Assumptions,” provides further detail on the approach used in this section.
3.1.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal policies and regulations related to visual resources, primarily the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-285, Regulations 23 CFR 750, 23 CFR 751, 23 CFR 752), apply only to federal-aid highways (National Highway System or National System of Interstate and Defense Highways). In Sacramento County, Interstate 5 (I-5) and Interstate 80 (I-80) are part of the National Highway System. I-5 is located 0.9 mile west of the project site and I-80 is located approximately 11 miles north of the project site. As there are no roadways that are part of the National Highway System or part of the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways in the vicinity of the project site and the project would occur on private property, there are no federal plans, policies, or laws related to aesthetics and visual resources that are applicable to the project.
State
California Scenic Highway Program California’s Scenic Highway Program was created by the California Legislature in 1963 and is managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The goal of this program is to preserve and protect scenic highway corridors from changes that would affect the aesthetic value of the land adjacent to highways. A highway may be designated “scenic” depending on how much of the natural landscape travelers can see, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes on travelers’ enjoyment of the view. The program includes a list of highways eligible to become, or designated as, official scenic highways; and includes a process for the designation of official State or County Scenic Highways.
Page 3.1-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The closest highway that is designated scenic is a portion of State Route (SR) 160. SR 160 parallels the Sacramento River and is designated scenic between the Contra Costa/Sacramento County line and the south city-limit line for the City of Sacramento. The nearest segment of SR 160 that has been designated as scenic is located approximately 7 miles from the project site, and the site is not visible from the scenic highway. No other state-designated scenic highways are near the project site (Caltrans 2017). Therefore, there are no state plans, policies, or laws related to aesthetics and visual resources that are applicable to the project.
Local
City of Sacramento General Plan The following goals and policies from the General Plan are relevant to visual resources within the entire project site:
Land Use and Urban Design Element Goal LU 6.1: Corridors. Support the development of major circulation corridors that balance their vehicular function with a vibrant mix of uses that contribute to meeting local and citywide needs for retail, services, and housing and provide pedestrian-friendly environments that serve as gathering places for adjacent neighborhoods.
• Policy LU 6.1.12: Compatibility with Adjoining Uses. The City shall ensure that the introduction of higher-density mixed-use development along major arterial corridors is compatible with adjacent land uses, particularly residential uses, by requiring such features as:
buildings setback from rear or side yard property lines adjoining single-family residential uses;
building heights stepped back from sensitive adjoining uses to maintain appropriate transitions in scale and to protect privacy and solar access;
landscaped off-street parking areas, loading areas, and service areas screened from adjacent residential areas, to the degree feasible; and
lighting shielded and directed downward to minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses.
Goal LU 9.1: Open Space, Parks, and Recreation. Protect open space for its recreational, agricultural, safety, and environmental value and provide adequate parks and open space areas throughout the city.
• Policy LU 9.1.4: Open Space Buffers. The City shall use traditional, developed parks and employ innovative uses of open space to “soften” the edges between urban areas and the natural environment.
Page 3.1-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Environmental Resources Element Goal ER 7.1: Visual Resource Preservation. Maintain and protect significant visual resources and aesthetics that define Sacramento.
• Policy ER 7.1.1: Protect Scenic Views. The City shall avoid or reduce substantial adverse effects of new development on views from public places to the Sacramento and American Rivers and adjacent greenways, landmarks, and the State Capitol along Capitol Mall.
• Policy ER 7.1.2: Visually Complimentary Development. The City shall require new development be located and designed to visually complement the natural environment/setting when near the Sacramento and American Rivers, and along streams.
• Policy ER 7.1.3: Lighting. The City shall minimize obtrusive light by limiting outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excessive, or unnecessary, and requiring light for development to be directed downward to minimize spill-over onto adjacent properties and reduce vertical glare.
• Policy ER 7.1.4: Reflective Glass. The City shall prohibit new development from (1) using reflective glass that exceeds 50 percent of any building surface and on the bottom three floors, (2) using mirrored glass, (3) using black glass that exceeds 25 percent of any surface of a building, (4) using metal building materials that exceed 50 percent of any street-facing surface of a primarily residential building, and (5) using exposed concrete that exceeds 50 percent of any building.
3.1.2 Environmental Setting
Aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. Therefore, the environmental setting consists of the quality and character of the site and its surroundings as well as sensitivity of viewers. The descriptions of visual resources in this section are accompanied by photographs of representative views, taken during a site visit on September 9, 2017.
Project Site and Surroundings
The Headquarters Campus is located in an urban setting on 43 acres within the eastern portion of the City of Sacramento. The area is bordered by 59th Street to the west, 65th Street to the east, Folsom Boulevard to the north, and S Street to the south. The surrounding area is primarily utility-related uses with multi-family and commercial uses to the northeast and southeast. The project site also has the Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) light rail transit (LRT) track alignment bisecting it.
Page 3.1-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
In general, the project site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 30 to 44 feet. On- site structures are generally low- to mid-rise buildings with 1 to 5 floors. The two dominant structures on the project site are the Headquarters Building and the Customer Service Center, which are both five stories in height. The communications tower (approximately 150 feet in height) that is located adjacent to the Auxiliary Building is visible from 59th and S streets. The project site is landscaped with numerous trees, shrubs, and turf areas along the periphery and around the Headquarters Building. On-site trees generally range in height between 24 and 50 feet in height.
Viewer Exposure and Sensitivity
Viewer groups in this area predominantly consist of motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians traveling along 59th, 65th, and S streets, as well as motorists along U.S. Highway 50 (US 50). Viewer groups also include commuters on SacRT’s LRT line. The closest residential viewers include the multi-family residences located north of the Customer Service Center and SacRT LRT track alignment as part of a mixed-use development and the residential neighborhood located north of the project site, across Folsom Boulevard. Views of the project site from south of US 50 are largely precluded by US 50, itself, and its associated sound wall, although some residences located near 59th Street have partial views across US 50 of the project site. Long-distance views of the project site are limited to those along US 50, primarily for motorists traveling westbound. In general views of and from the project site are consistent with a typical urban environment.
Sensitivity of the viewers is based on the quality of the view, visibility of resources in the landscape, proximity of the viewers to the visual resource, elevation of the viewers relative to the visual resource, frequency and duration of views, numbers of viewers, and types and expectations of individuals and viewer groups. The closest residences are approximately 50 feet from the project site; however, this is limited to the apartment building located north of the Customer Service Center. Aside from three houses located between 62nd and 63rd streets, single-family residences to the north are located behind commercial buildings; single-family residences to the south are located across US 50. Because the majority of residences located in the area do not have a direct line of sight to the project site, it is likely that commuters experience the most frequent (and temporary) views of the project site. Additionally, the level of landscaping and vegetation between most viewpoints and existing on-site structures precludes unimpeded views of on-site structures. Although they may be frequently exposed to the views in the area, they would be expected to have reduced visual expectations or concerns because they are commuting, the degree of landscaping and vegetation between on-site structures and their views, and views are temporary. Further, the site is already urbanized, and this would be the expectation of viewers in the future. Motorists are therefore of moderately low viewer sensitivity.
Page 3.1-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Viewpoints
Three viewpoints were selected that are representative of the existing visual character of the site as well as the most publicly-accessible viewpoints. Exhibit 3.1-1 shows the location of these viewpoints. Each viewpoint is discussed below in terms of visual character and quality. Visual quality is depending on the following attributes:
• Vividness: The extent to which the landscape is memorable, which is associated with the distinctiveness, diversity, and contrast of visual elements.
• Intactness: The integrity of visual order in the landscape and the extent to which the existing landscape is free from non-typical visual intrusions.
• Unity: The extent to which visual intrusions are sensitive to and in visual harmony with the existing landscape.
Additionally, the viewer’s distance from landscape elements plays an important role in the determination of an area’s visual quality. Visibility and visual dominance of landscape elements depend on their placement within a viewshed.
Viewpoint 1: Southwest from Folsom Boulevard Viewpoint 1 is shown in Exhibit 3.1-2 and represents the view of the northern portion of the project site looking southwest from the north side of Folsom Boulevard (approximately 50 feet northeast of the northern project site boundary, at the intersection of 62nd Street and Folsom Boulevard. The primary elements within the view include Folsom Boulevard; commercial development along Folsom Boulevard, including Giovanni’s Pizzeria and Hoppy Brewing Company; and landscaping along the project site frontage. Of the on-site structures currently within the project site, only the Central Plant and portions of the Field Reporting Facility (FRF) and Headquarters Building are visible, although mostly obscured by landscaping. No long-distance views through the project site are available and mid- range views are largely limited to those provided by Folsom Boulevard. The visual character is urban.
Vividness is low because of the lack of distinctive landscaping features. Intactness is also moderate because the visual intrusions—commercial development, road, and power lines—are consistent with an urban landscape. Unity is moderate because the intrusions are in somewhat visual harmony with the landscape—the landscaping visible is generally consistent through the view. Overall, scenic quality for this view is low to moderate.
This and other views from nearby are experienced by motorists along Folsom Boulevard and residences located north of Folsom Boulevard. Motorists generally have moderately low and low sensitivity, respectively. Furthermore, because of the lack of traffic controls, motorists would see this view of the project site for approximately 5 seconds when traveling in any direction. Views from nearby residences are largely impaired by existing landscaping or fencing.
Page 3.1-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 3.1-1 Location of Representative Views and Viewpoints
Page 3.1-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 3.1-2 Viewpoint 1
Viewpoint 2: Northwest from 65th Street and US 50 On/Off Ramps Viewpoint 2 is shown in Exhibit 3.1-3 and represents the view looking northwest from approximately 150 feet east of the eastern project site boundary, at the intersection of 65th Street and US 50 on/off ramps. The primary elements within the view include 65th and S streets, the Chevron Station located immediately adjacent to the project site, landscaping, and the Customer Service Center. Of the on-site structures currently within the project site, only the Customer Service Center is visible. No long-distance views through the project site are available and all mid-range views are limited to those provided by 65th and S streets. Although the SacRT LRT and power lines are visible from this viewpoint, they are not a visually dominant feature. The visual character is urban.
Vividness is moderate because of the presence of the Customer Service Center and landscaping, which make for a somewhat distinctive visual combination. Intactness is also moderate because the visual intrusions—the Chevron station, road, and power lines— are consistent with an urban landscape, and do not substantially degrade the visual character. Unity is moderate because the intrusions are in somewhat visual harmony with the landscape—the landscaping visible is generally consistent through the view. Overall, scenic quality for this view is moderate.
This and other views from nearby are experienced by motorists entering and exiting US 50, traveling north along 65th Street and west along S Street. Motorists generally have moderately low and low sensitivity, respectively. Furthermore, because of the stop light, motorists would see this view of the project site for approximately 1 minute when traveling in any direction.
Page 3.1-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 3.1-3 Viewpoint 2
Viewpoint 3: Northeast from 59th and S Streets Viewpoint 3 is shown in Exhibit 3.1-4 and represents the view looking northeast from approximately 50 feet east of the eastern project site boundary, at the intersection of 59th and S streets. The primary elements within the view include 59th and S streets, landscaping, and the existing Auxiliary Building and the childcare center. Of the on-site structures currently within the project site, only the Auxiliary Building with its communication tower and the childcare center are visible. No long-distance views through the project site are available and all mid-range views are limited to those provided by S Street. Although the SacRT LRT and power lines are visible from this viewpoint, they are not a visually dominant feature. The visual character is urban.
Vividness is low because of the lack of distinctive landscaping features in the foreground, although the more distinctive landscaping associated with the Headquarters Building is available at mid-range. Intactness is also moderate because of US 50, the substantial US 50 on-ramp across the street from the Customer Service Center, and substantial on-street parking along S Street, which are consistent with an urban landscape. Unity is low because the visual character of existing structures on-site and adjacent to the site are different although the landscaping is somewhat consistent through the view. Overall, scenic quality for this view is low.
Page 3.1-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 3.1-4 Viewpoint 3
This and other views from nearby are experienced by motorists entering and exiting US 50, traveling north along 59th Street and east along S Street. Motorists generally have moderately low and low sensitivity, respectively. Furthermore, because of the stop light, motorists would see this view of the project site for approximately 1 minute when traveling in any direction.
Light and Glare Conditions
The terms “glare” and “skyglow” are used in this analysis to describe the visual effects of lighting. For the purposes of this impact analysis, glare is considered to be direct exposure to bright lights and skyglow is a glow that extends beyond the light source and can dominate or partially dominate views above the horizon.
The current Headquarters Campus uses lighting that is in compliance with the Sacramento 2035 General Plan policy for lighting. The existing buildings are constructed with materials consistent with the City of Sacramento policy with regards to materials that create glare.
3.1.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance/Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a visual resources impact would be considered significant if implementation of the project would do any of the following:
Page 3.1-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
• substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway;
• substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings; or
• create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Analysis Methodology
The method used for this assessment of impacts on aesthetics/visual resources is adapted from guidelines prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA 2015) for assessing visual impacts associated with transportation projects and from guidelines prepared by the United States Forest Service (USDA-FS 1995) for visual resource assessment. The process of describing and evaluating visual resources near the project site and the surrounding areas involves the following steps:
• Identify the visual features or resources that compose and define the visual character of the viewsheds. A viewshed is defined as all of the surface area visible from a particular location (e.g., an overlook) or sequence of locations (e.g., a roadway or trail) (FHWA 2015).
• Assess the quality of the identified visual resources relative to overall regional visual character.
• Identify major viewer groups and describe viewer exposure.
• Identify viewer sensitivity, or the relative importance of views to people who are members of the viewing public.
The following concepts are used in evaluating the project’s effects on visual resources:
• Visual quality is dependent upon the degree to which landscape features combine to provide striking and distinctive visual patterns; whether or not intrusive elements are dominant in the views; and the visual or compositional harmony of the views.
• A scenic vista is generally considered a view of an area that has “remarkable” or unique scenery or a resource that is unique to the area.
• The viewer’s distance from landscape elements plays an important role in the determination of an area’s visual quality. Visibility and visual dominance of landscape elements depend on their placement within a viewshed. Viewer sensitivity is also
Page 3.1-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
considered in assessing the impacts of visual change and is a function of several factors.
• The sensitivity of the viewer or viewer concern is based on the visibility of resources in the landscape, proximity of the viewers to the visual resource, elevation of the viewers relative to the visual resource, frequency and duration of views, numbers of viewers, and types and expectations of individuals and viewer groups.
Issues or Potential Impacts Not Discussed Further
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. As noted above, there are no designated scenic highways in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, no impacts related to potential damage to visual resources located within a designated state scenic highway would occur. This issue is not discussed further.
Substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The project site is located within an urban area and long-distance views of and through the project site are precluded by existing development and landscaping. The most prominent view of the project is available to westbound traffic along US 50 as it approaches 65th Street. Views of the project site from south of US 50 are not available due to the presence of US 50 and associated sound wall. Views from US 50 of and through the project site are not considered a scenic vista as it does not present a unique or picturesque view of topography or of downtown Sacramento. Given that there are no established scenic vistas of or in the vicinity of the project site, development under the HQCMP would not obstruct existing vistas. Therefore, no impact to scenic vistas would occur and this issue is not discussed further.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.1-1: Have a substantial adverse effect on existing visual character.
The proposed project would create visually-similar uses as the current Headquarters Campus. The HQCMP includes landscaping plans in the proposal to maintain the visual character of the site. The impact on visual character of the site and its surroundings would be less than significant.
During construction, trailers and equipment may be seen from the surrounding off-site areas. However, this would be a temporary impact consistent with the other commercial/industrial developments in the area. Existing mature trees and other landscaping would limit views of the construction equipment.
Implementation of the HQCMP would involve the redevelopment of portions of the project site with new structures. The Headquarters Building would not be modified as part of the HQCMP and would retain its existing visual character with implementation of the HQCMP.
Page 3.1-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Customer-facing services currently located in the Customer Service Center would be relocated to a new Community Energy/Innovation Center. Upon completion of the Community Energy/Innovation Center and the relocation of customer service functions, the Customer Service Center would be rebranded as the SMUD Corporate Center and would be expanded to include a 20,000 square foot (sf) addition that would be similar in design and scale to the rest of the existing structure. The proposed new structures would be similar in nature and scale (i.e., up to three stories in height and 50,000 sf in size) to existing structures (e.g., the existing Auxiliary Building and FRF) but would be more distinctive and of a more modern architectural style. As noted in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the communications tower would be relocated to an area more central to the project site and north of the LRT track alignment, which would reduce its visibility from 59th and S Streets. The relocated tower would retain the same height and massing at its proposed location adjacent to the relocated Auxiliary Building, and may be moderately visible from Folsom Boulevard. However, based on the height of existing vegetation along Folsom Boulevard (20 to 30 feet in height) and the anticipated distance between the relocated tower and nearby sensitive receptors to the north, views of the relocated tower from off-site locations would be largely obscured by existing vegetation.
As noted above, the existing campus contains many mature trees and other landscaping that block views of the site in some areas. Implementation of the HQCMP would retain landscaping where possible and the general topography of the site such that this condition is not anticipated to change. The project would involve redevelopment of several areas of the Headquarters Campus for the purpose of creating a more uniform and cohesive aesthetic condition. Therefore, although implementation of the HQCMP would involve further development of the project site with new structures such that the existing visual character would be altered, these changes would not degrade the visual quality of the site or the surrounding area and would be expected to create visual enhancements. The intended extensive use of landscaping within the project site would partially shield views of the interior areas of the site from surrounding viewpoints, similar to existing conditions. By continuing to provide visual separation between on-campus development and adjacent viewpoints, the HQCMP would minimize changes to the visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. As such, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact 3.1-2: Create a new source of light or glare.
Implementation of the HQCMP could include the removal or movement of site features that could alter the location of lighting and create new sources of light that could be perceived off-site. This impact would be potentially significant.
Development under the HQCMP would involve modifications to existing structures, demolition of existing structures, and the development of new structures within the project site. The area surrounding the project site is primarily built-out, and a significant amount
Page 3.1-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
of ambient light from urban uses already exists. Nonetheless, development under the HQCMP could create new sources of light during nighttime hours from any of the following: exterior building lighting, parking lot lights, and headlights of vehicular traffic. Potential building lighting would be located within 2- to 3-story structures, consistent with existing development in the area. Parking lot lights would also be of similar height as existing standards and are not anticipated to exceed the height of existing/proposed structures nor the majority of landscaping along the periphery of the site. Additionally, the HQCMP would not result in new vehicle access points such that vehicle headlights would shine directly on nearby sensitive receptors, including across Folsom Boulevard. However, especially within the northern portion of the project site, future development under the HQCMP may require the removal of certain vegetation that currently precludes the ability for light spillover to occur. As a result, the aforementioned sources of light could create spillover light impacts to nearby sensitive receptors, especially those located north of Folsom Boulevard.
Given the possibility of creating new sources of light through the development of new structures and changes in on-site lighting design, this impact is potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.1-2: Lighting standards. All new outdoor lighting shall utilize directional lighting methods with shielded and cutoff type light fixtures to minimize glare and direct light downward to prevent light trespass outside the project boundary.
Significance after Mitigation With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.1-2, which would require that any new on- site lighting be shielded, directed downward, and substantially reduce light spillover, the HQCMP would not result in a substantial new source of light or glare and impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of this mitigation measure would be required during design and construction of uses under Phase 1 of the HQCMP.
Page 3.1-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3.1-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.2 Air Quality
This section describes the study area’s existing air quality conditions and applicable air quality regulations, and analyzes potential short- and long-term air quality impacts that could result from implementation of the project.
3.2.1 Regulatory Setting
The project is located in the City of Sacramento, which is within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). Air quality in the SVAB is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). SMAQMD develops rules, regulations, policies, and/or goals to comply with applicable legislation. Although EPA regulations may not be superseded, State and local regulations may be more stringent.
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which was enacted in 1970. The most recent major amendments to the CAA were made by Congress were in 1990.
Criteria Air Pollutants The CAA required EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). As shown in Table 3.2-1, EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable matter with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead. The primary standards protect public health and the secondary standards protect public welfare. The CAA also required each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. EPA is responsible for reviewing all SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments, and whether implementation will achieve air quality goals. If EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a federal implementation plan that imposes additional control measures may be prepared for the nonattainment area. If an approvable SIP is not submitted or implemented within the mandated time frame, sanctions may be applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basin.
Page 3.2-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Nationalc Pollutant Averaging Time Californiaa,b Primaryb,d Secondaryb,e 1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3) –e Same as primary Ozone 0.070 ppm (137 0.070 ppm (147 8-hour standard μg/m3) μg/m3) 1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Carbon monoxide Same as primary 9 ppm (CO) 8-hour 9 ppmf (10 mg/m3) standard (10 mg/m3) Annual arithmetic Same as primary 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 53 ppb (100 μg/m3) Nitrogen dioxide mean standard (NO2) 1-hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3) 100 ppb (188 μg/m3) — 24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) — — 0.5 ppm (1300 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 3-hour — — μg/m3) 1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) 75 ppb (196 μg/m3) —
Respirable Annual arithmetic 3 20 μg/m — Same as primary particulate matter mean standard (PM10) 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 Annual arithmetic 12 μg/m3 12.0 μg/m3 15.0 μg/m3 Fine particulate mean matter (PM2.5) Same as primary 24-hour — 35 μg/m3 standard Same as primary Calendar quarter — 1.5 μg/m3 standard Lead f 30-Day average 1.5 μg/m3 — — Rolling 3-Month Same as primary – 0.15 μg/m3 Average standard Hydrogen sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3 No Vinyl chloride f 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) national standards Visibility-reducing 8-hour Extinction of 0.23 per particulate matter km Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; km = kilometers; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million. a California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, particulate matter, and visibility- reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. c National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8- hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. The PM10 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration 3 above 150 μg/m is equal to or less than one. The PM2.5 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. Environmental
Page 3.2-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.2-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Nationalc Pollutant Averaging Time Californiaa,b Primaryb,d Secondaryb,e Protection Agency for further clarification and current federal policies. d National primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. e National secondary standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. f The California Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. Source: CARB 2016a
Toxic Air Contaminants/Hazardous Air Pollutants Toxic air contaminants (TACs), or in federal parlance, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are a defined set of airborne pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.
A wide range of sources, from industrial plants to motor vehicles, emit TACs. The health effects associated with TACs are quite diverse and generally are assessed locally, rather than regionally. TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage; or short-term acute affects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), running nose, throat pain, and headaches.
For evaluation purposes, TACs are separated into carcinogens and non-carcinogens based on the nature of the physiological effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. Carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. This contrasts with criteria air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the ambient standards have been established (Table 3.2-1). Cancer risk from TACs is expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals, typically over a lifetime of exposure.
EPA and, in California, CARB regulate HAPs and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum available control technology or best available control technology for toxics to limit emissions.
State
California Air Resources Board CARB is the agency responsible for coordination and oversight of state and local air pollution control programs in California and for implementing the California Clean Air Act (CCAA). California law authorizes CARB to set ambient (outdoor) air pollution standards
Page 3.2-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
(California Health and Safety Code Section 39606) in consideration of public health, safety, and welfare (California Ambient Air Quality Standards [CAAQS] (Table 3.2-1).
Criteria Air Pollutants CARB has established CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility- reducing particulate matter, and the above-mentioned criteria air pollutants. In most cases the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. Differences in the standards are generally explained by the health effects studies considered during the standard-setting process and the interpretation of the studies. In addition, the CAAQS incorporate a margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals.
The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest date practical. The act specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and areawide emission sources, and provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.
Among CARB’s other responsibilities are overseeing local air district compliance with Federal and State laws, approving local air quality plans, submitting SIPs to EPA, monitoring air quality, determining and updating area designations and maps, and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, off-road vehicles, and fuels.
Toxic Air Contaminants TACs in California are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807, Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588, Chapter 1252, Statutes of 1987). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Research, public participation, and scientific peer review are required before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs, including diesel particulate matter (PM), and adopted EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs.
Once a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts an airborne toxics control measure for sources that emit that particular TAC. If a safe threshold exists for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure must incorporate best available control technology for toxics to minimize emissions.
CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emission standards for various on-road mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses, and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). Recent milestones included the low-sulfur diesel fuel requirement and tighter emissions standards for heavy-duty diesel trucks (effective in 2007 and subsequent model years) and off-road diesel equipment (2011). Over time, replacing older vehicles will result in a vehicle fleet that produces substantially lower levels of TACs than under current conditions. Mobile-source emissions of TACs (e.g., benzene, 1-3-butadiene, diesel PM) in California have been
Page 3.2-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 reduced substantially over the last decade; such emissions will be reduced further through a progression of regulatory measures (e.g., low emission vehicle/clean fuels and Phase II reformulated-gasoline regulations) and control technologies.
Local
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
Criteria Air Pollutants SMAQMD is the primary agency responsible for planning to meet NAAQS and CAAQS in Sacramento County. SMAQMD works with other local air districts in the Sacramento region to maintain the region’s portion of the SIP for ground-level ozone. The SIP is a compilation of plans and regulations that govern how the region and State will comply with the federal Clean Air Act requirements to attain and maintain the NAAQS for ozone. The Sacramento Region has been designated as a “severe” 8-hour ozone nonattainment area with an extended attainment deadline of June 15, 2019.
SMAQMD has developed a set of guidelines for use by lead agencies when preparing environmental documents. The guidelines contain thresholds of significance for criteria pollutants and TACs, and also make recommendations for conducting air quality analyses. After SMAQMD guidelines have been consulted and the air quality impacts of a project have been assessed, the lead agency’s analysis undergoes a review by SMAQMD. SMAQMD submits comments and suggestions to the lead agency for incorporation into the environmental document.
All projects are subject to adopted SMAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the construction of the project may include but are not limited to the following:
• Rule 201: General Permit Requirements. Any project that includes the use of equipment capable of releasing emissions to the atmosphere may be required to obtain permit(s) from SMAQMD before equipment operation. The applicant, developer, or operator of a project that includes an emergency generator, boiler, or heater should contact SMAQMD early to determine whether a permit is required, and to begin the permit application process. Portable construction equipment (e.g., generators, compressors, pile drivers, lighting equipment) with an internal combustion engine greater than 50 horsepower must have a SMAQMD permit or CARB portable equipment registration.
• Rule 202: New Source Review. The purpose of this rule is to provide for the issuance of authorities to construct and permits to operate at new and modified stationary air pollution sources and to provide mechanisms, including emission offsets, by which authorities to construct such sources may be granted without interfering with the attainment or maintenance of ambient air quality standards.
Page 3.2-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Rule 402: Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause or have natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.
• Rule 403: Fugitive Dust. The developer or contractor is required to control dust emissions from earthmoving activities or any other construction activity to prevent airborne dust from leaving the project area.
• Rule 442: Architectural Coatings. The purpose of the rule is to limit the emissions of VOCs from the use of architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for use within SMAQMD’s jurisdiction.
• Rule 902: Asbestos. The developer or contractor is required to notify SMAQMD of any regulated renovation or demolition activity. Rule 902 contains specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos.
In addition, if modeled construction-generated emissions for a project are not reduced to less than SMAQMD’s mass emission thresholds after the standard construction mitigation is applied, then SMAQMD recommends using an off-site construction mitigation fee. The fee must be paid before a grading permit can be issued. This fee is used by SMAQMD to purchase off-site emissions reductions. Such purchases are made through SMAQMD’s Heavy Duty Incentive Program, through which select owners of heavy-duty equipment in Sacramento County can repower or retrofit their old engines with cleaner engines or technologies.
Toxic Air Contaminants At the local level, air districts may adopt and enforce CARB control measures. Under SMAQMD Rule 201 (“General Permit Requirements”), Rule 202 (“New Source Review”), and Rule 207 (“Federal Operating Permit”), all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from SMAQMD. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including New Source Review standards and air toxics control measures. SMAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs. SMAQMD prioritizes TAC-emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are people, or facilities that generally house people (e.g., schools, hospitals, residences), that may experience adverse effects from unhealthful concentrations of air pollutants.
Page 3.2-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
City of Sacramento General Plan The following goals and policies from the City of Sacramento’s 2035 General Plan are specifically relevant to air quality. Numerous policies within the 2035 General Plan address sustainable development, which influence operational mobile- and area-source emissions. Policies throughout the Land Use and Mobility elements promote reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through mix and density of land uses, walkable neighborhood design, bicycle facilities and infrastructure, public transportation facilities and infrastructure (City of Sacramento 2015).
Land Use • Policy LU 2.7.5: Development along Freeways. The City shall promote high-quality development character of buildings along freeway corridors and protect the public from the adverse effects of vehicle-generated air emissions, noise, and vibration, using such techniques as:
requiring extensive landscaping and trees along the freeway fronting elevation;
establish a consistent building line, articulating and modulating building elevations and heights to create visual interest; and
include design elements that reduce noise and provide for proper filtering, ventilation, and exhaust of vehicle air emissions.
Environmental Resources • Policy ER 6.1.1: Maintain Ambient Air Quality Standards. The City shall work with CARB and SMAQMD to meet State and federal ambient air quality standards in order to protect residents, regardless of age, culture, ethnicity, gender, race, socioeconomic status, or geographic location, from the health effects of air pollution.
• Policy ER 6.1.2: New Development. The City shall review proposed development projects to ensure projects incorporate feasible measures that reduce construction and operational emissions for reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) through project design.
• Policy ER 6.1.3: Emissions Reduction. The City shall require development projects that exceed SMAQMD ROG and NOX operational thresholds to incorporate design or operational features that reduce emissions equal to 15 percent from the level that would be produced by an unmitigated project.
• Policy ER 6.1.4: Sensitive Uses. The City shall coordinate with SMAQMD in evaluating exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants, and will impose appropriate conditions on projects to protect public health and safety.
• Policy ER 6.1.14: Zero-Emission and Low-Emission Vehicle Use. The City shall encourage the use of zero-emission vehicles, low-emission vehicles, bicycles and
Page 3.2-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
other non-motorized vehicles, and car-sharing programs by requiring sufficient and convenient infrastructure and parking facilities in residential developments and employment centers to accommodate these vehicles.
3.2.2 Environmental Setting
The project area is located in the City of Sacramento, which is within the SVAB. The SVAB includes all of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Sacramento, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba counties; the western portion of Placer County; and the eastern portion of Solano County. The ambient concentrations of air pollutant emissions are determined by the amount of emissions released by the sources of air pollutants within and upwind of the region, and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and sunlight. Therefore, existing air quality conditions in the area are determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the amount of emissions released by existing air pollutant sources and upwind regions, as discussed separately below.
Climate, Meteorology, and Topography
The SVAB is a relatively flat area bordered by the north Coast Ranges to the west and the northern Sierra Nevada to the east. Air flows into the SVAB through the Carquinez Strait, the only breach in the western mountain barrier, and moves across the Sacramento River–San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) from the San Francisco Bay area.
The Mediterranean climate type of the SVAB is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, rainy winters. During the summer, daily temperatures range from 50 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to more than 100°F. The inland location and surrounding mountains shelter the area from much of the ocean breezes that keep the coastal regions moderate in temperature. Most precipitation in the area results from air masses that move in from the Pacific Ocean, usually from the west or northwest, during the winter months. More than half the total annual precipitation falls during the winter rainy season (November through February); the average winter temperature is a moderate 49°F. Also, characteristic of SVAB winters are periods of dense and persistent low-level fog, which are most prevalent between storms. The prevailing winds are moderate in speed and vary from moisture-laden breezes from the south to dry land flows from the north.
The mountains surrounding the SVAB create a barrier to airflow, which leads to the entrapment of air pollutants when meteorological conditions are unfavorable for transport and dilution. The highest frequency of poor air movement occurs in the fall and winter when high-pressure cells are present over the SVAB. The lack of surface wind during these periods, combined with the reduced vertical flow caused by a decline in surface heating, reduces the influx of air and leads to the concentration of air pollutants under stable metrological conditions. Surface concentrations of air pollutant emissions are highest when these conditions occur in combination with agricultural burning
Page 3.2-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
activities or with temperature inversions, which hamper dispersion by creating a ceiling over the area and trapping air pollutants near the ground.
May through October is ozone season in the SVAB. This period is characterized by poor air movement in the mornings with the arrival of the Delta sea breeze from the southwest in the afternoons. In addition, longer daylight hours provide a plentiful amount of sunlight to fuel photochemical reactions between reactive organic gases (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), which result in ozone formation. Typically, the Delta breeze transports air pollutants northward out of the SVAB; however, a phenomenon known as the Schultz Eddy prevents this from occurring during approximately half of the time from July to September. The Schultz Eddy phenomenon causes the wind to shift southward and blow air pollutants back into the SVAB. This phenomenon exacerbates the concentration of air pollutant emissions in the area and contributes to the area violating the ambient-air quality standards.
The local meteorology of the project area and surrounding area is represented by measurements recorded at the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC) Sacramento 5 ESE station. The normal annual precipitation is approximately 18 inches. January temperatures range from a normal minimum of 40°F to a normal maximum of 54°F. July temperatures range from a normal minimum of 59°F to a normal maximum of 92°F (WRCC 2016). The predominant wind direction is from the south (WRCC 2017).
Criteria Air Pollutants Concentrations of emissions of criteria air pollutants indicate the quality of the ambient air. Brief descriptions of key criteria air pollutants in the SVAB and their health effects is provided below. Criteria air pollutants include ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. However, ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 are the criteria air pollutants of primary concern in this analysis because of their nonattainment status with respect to the applicable NAAQS and/or CAAQS. The attainment status of criteria air pollutants with respect to the NAAQS and the CAAQS in Sacramento County are shown in Table 3.2-2.
Table 3.2-2 Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality (2014-2016)1 2014 2015 2016 Ozone Maximum concentration (1-hr/8-hr avg, ppm) 0.085/0.072 0.092/0.077 0.094/0.075 Number of days state standard exceeded (1-hr/8-hr) 0/4 0/4 0/3 Number of days national standard exceeded (8-hr) 3 4 4
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Maximum concentration (24-hour μg/m3) 33.2 42.1 39.8 Number of days national standard exceeded (24-hour 0 1 0 measured)
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Maximum concentration (μg/m3) 106.41 59.1 51.4 Number of days state standard exceeded 4 6 1
Page 3.2-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.2-2 Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality (2014-2016)1 2014 2015 2016 Number of days national standard exceeded 0 0 0 Notes: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million 1 This concentration coincides with the King wildfire that occurred during fall of 2014 in nearby El Dorado County. Source: CARB 2016b
Ground-level Ozone Ground-level ozone is a photochemical oxidant (a substance whose oxygen combines chemically with another substance in the presence of sunlight) and the primary component of smog (CARB 2017). Ozone is not directly emitted into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. ROG are volatile organic compounds that are photochemically reactive. ROG emissions result primarily from incomplete combustion and the evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels. NOX are a group of gaseous compounds of nitrogen and oxygen that result from the combustion of fuels. Emissions of the ozone precursors, ROG and NOX, have decreased over the past several years because of more stringent motor vehicle standards and cleaner burning fuels. Emissions of ROG and NOX decreased from 2000 to 2010 and are projected to continue decreasing from 2010 to 2035 (CARB 2013:Table 3-1).
Acute health effects of ozone exposure include increased respiratory and pulmonary resistance, cough, pain, shortness of breath, and lung inflammation. Long-term health effects include chronic bronchitis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (EPA 2017a).
Emissions of the ozone precursors ROG and NOX have decreased over the past several years because of more stringent motor vehicle standards and cleaner burning fuels. Between 2000 and 2015, the annual average daily emissions of ROG and NOX decreased by 56 percent. However, the ozone problem in Sacramento Metropolitan Area still ranks among the most severe in the state (CARB 2013:4-45,2-16).
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is most present in urban environments. The major human-made sources of NO2 are combustion devices, such as boilers, gas turbines, and mobile and stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide (NO), which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NO2. The combined emissions of NO and NO2 are referred to as NOX and are reported as equivalent NO2. Because NO2 is formed and depleted by reactions associated with photochemical smog (ozone), the NO2 concentration in a particular geographical area may not be representative of the local sources of NOX emissions (EPA 2016, 2017b).
Page 3.2-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Particulate Matter Respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less is referred to as PM10. PM10 consists of particulate matter emitted directly into the air, such as fugitive dust, soot, and smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires and natural windblown dust, and particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by reaction of gaseous precursors (CARB 2013:1-20). PM2.5 includes a subgroup of smaller particles that have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. PM10 emissions in the SVAB are dominated by emissions from area sources, primarily fugitive dust from vehicle travel on unpaved and paved roads, farming operations, construction and demolition, and particles from residential fuel combustion. Direct emissions of PM10 are projected to remain relatively constant through 2035. Direct emissions of PM2.5 have steadily declined in the SVAB between 2000 and 2010 and then are projected to increase very slightly through 2035. Emissions of PM2.5 in the SVAB are dominated by the same sources as emissions of PM10 (CARB 2013:4-47).
Acute health effects of PM10 exposure include breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and premature death. Chronic health effects include reduced lung function and chronic bronchitis (EPA 2003).
Monitoring Station Data and Attainment Area Designations Concentrations of criteria air pollutants are measured at several monitoring stations in the SVAB. The Sacramento-T Street station is the closest station to the project area with recent data for ozone and PM10. Table 3.2-3 summarizes the air quality data from the last three years (2014-2016). In general, the measurements of ambient air quality from the monitoring stations at Sacramento-T Street are representative of the air quality in the vicinity of the project area.
Table 3.2-3 Attainment Status Designations for Sacramento County Pollutant Federal Standard State Standard Nonattainment (1-hour) Classification- Attainment (1-hour)1 Serious2 Nonattainment (8-hour)3 Ozone Classification-Severe Nonattainment (8-hour) Nonattainment (8-hour)4 Classification-Severe Respirable particulate matter Nonattainment (24-hour) Attainment (24-hour) (PM10) Nonattainment (Annual) Nonattainment (24-hour) (No State Standard for 24-Hour) Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Attainment (Annual) Attainment (Annual) Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (1-hour) Carbon monoxide (CO) Attainment (8-hour) Attainment (8-hour) Unclassified/Attainment (1-hour) Attainment (1-hour) Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Unclassified/Attainment (Annual) Attainment (Annual) 5 Sulfur dioxide (SO2) (Attainment Pending) (1-Hour) Attainment (1-hour)
Page 3.2-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.2-3 Attainment Status Designations for Sacramento County Pollutant Federal Standard State Standard Attainment (24-hour) Lead (Particulate) Attainment (3-month rolling avg.) Attainment (30-day average) Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified (1-hour) Sulfates Attainment (24-hour) No Federal Standard Visibly Reducing Particles Unclassified (8-hour) Vinyl Chloride Unclassified (24-hour) Notes: 1 Air Quality meets federal 1-hour Ozone standard (77 FR 64036). EPA revoked this standard, but some associated requirements still apply. SMAQMD attained the standard in 2009. SMAQMD has requested EPA recognize attainment to fulfill the requirements. 2 Per Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 40921.5(c), the classification is based on 1989 – 1991 data, and therefore does not change. 3 1997 Standard. 4 2008 Standard. 5 2010 Standard. Source: SMAQMD 2016a
The EPA and CARB use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to attainment status for criteria air pollutants established by the agencies. The purpose of these designations is to identify those areas with air quality problems and thereby initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are “nonattainment,” “attainment,” and “unclassified.” “Unclassified” is used in areas that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards. The current national and State attainment designations for the Sacramento County portion of the SVAB are shown in Table 3.2-3 for each criteria air pollutant.
Emissions Inventory Exhibit 3.2-1 summarizes emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors within the Sacramento County portion of the SVAB in which the project is located for various source categories. CARB provides estimates for the County’s 2012 air pollutant inventory – the most recent available inventory. According to this inventory, mobile sources are the largest contributor to the estimated annual average for air pollutant levels of ROG and NOX, accounting for approximately 46 percent and 89 percent of these emissions, respectively. Areawide sources account for approximately 81 percent and 74 percent of the County’s PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, respectively (CARB 2016b).
Page 3.2-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
60
50
40 Stationary Other Mobile 30 On-Road Vehicles Areawide
Emissions(Tons/day) 20
10
0 ROG Noₓ PM₁₀ PM₂ˌ₅
Source: CARB 2016b Exhibit 3.2-1 Sacramento County 2012 Emissions Inventory
Toxic Air Contaminants
Concentrations of TACs are also used to indicate the quality of ambient air. TACs are usually present in trace quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.
According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (CARB 2013), the majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being diesel PM. Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emissions control system is being used. Unlike the other TACs, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. However, CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a PM exposure method. This method uses the CARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. In addition to diesel PM, the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene.
Page 3.2-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Diesel PM poses the greatest health risk among these 10 TACs mentioned. Based on receptor modeling techniques, CARB estimated its health risk to be 360 excess cancer cases per million people in the SVAB in the year 2000. Since 1990, the health risk associated with diesel PM has been reduced by 52 percent. Overall, levels of most TACs, except para-dichlorobenzene and formaldehyde, have decreased since 1990 (CARB 2013).
Major sources of TACs in the vicinity of the project site include U.S. Highway 50, gas stations, dry cleaners, and sawdust handling. In addition, the project site currently has permits to operate emergency diesel generators and printing presses, which are also sources of TACs (SMAQMD 2016b).
Odors
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).
The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell very minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; an odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., fast food restaurant). It is important to note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity. Major sources of odor can include landfills, waste transfer stations, wastewater treatment plants, and certain industrial processes.
Other than typical solid waste storage in commercial dumpsters, no major sources of odors are located in close proximity to the project site.
Sensitive Land Uses
Sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where exposure to pollutants could result in health-related risks to individuals. Residential dwellings and places where people recreate or conjugate for extended periods of time such as parks or schools are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to pollutants.
Sensitive receptors near the project site include medium density residential land uses located within 900 feet north of the project site and as close as 350 feet to the south of the project site, Faith Bible Church located 525 feet south of the project site, the UC
Page 3.2-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Davis Medical Center located approximately 2,500 feet west of the project site, and, currently, SMUD’s Childcare Center located on the project site.
3.2.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance/Significance Criteria
Per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and SMAQMD recommendations, air quality impacts are considered significant if the project would result in any of the following:
• construction-generated criteria air pollutant or precursor emissions to exceed SMAQMD-recommended thresholds of 85 lb/day for NOX, 0 lb/day of PM10, and 0 lb/day of PM2.5. As noted in SMAQMD’s recommended significance thresholds, if all feasible “Best Management Practices” (BMPs), as defined by SMAQMD, for controlling construction emissions are applied, the applicable threshold would be 80 lb/day and 14.6 tons/year for PM10, and 82 lb/day and 15 tons/year for PM2.5;
• a net increase in long-term operational criteria air pollutant or precursor emissions that exceed the SMAQMD-recommended thresholds of 65 lb/day for ROG and NOX, 0 lb/day of PM10, and 0 lb/day of PM2.5. If all feasible BMPs, as defined by SMAQMD, for controlling operational phase emissions are applied, the applicable threshold would be 80 lb/day and 14.6 tons/year for PM10, and 82 lb/day and 15 tons/year for PM2.5;
• long-term operational local mobile-source CO emissions that would result in exceedance of the NAAQS and CAAQS for CO;
• an incremental increase in cancer risk greater than 10 in one million at any off-site receptor or ground-level concentrations of project-generated TACs that would result in a Hazard Index greater than 1 at any off-site receptor; or
• create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
Analysis Methodology
Construction Activity Short-term construction-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 computer program, as recommended by SMAQMD. Modeling was based on project-specific information (e.g., total area of new construction, phasing, demolition activity), where available, reasonable assumptions based on typical construction activities, and default values in CalEEMod that are based on the project’s location and land use type.
Major construction activity anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation includes the demolition of two buildings on the existing campus, construction of five new
Page 3.2-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
buildings, and additions and renovations to existing buildings over a 20-year timeframe. Considering the available space for construction activity to occur on the project site, it is assumed a maximum of 50,000 square feet (sf) of new building construction and one acre of paving would occur annually. Based on anticipated development of the HCQMP, it is unlikely that more than one building would be constructed at any one time. However, demolition of existing structures may occur during the initial development phases when new buildings replace existing. Thus, construction estimates assumed that demolition and construction could overlap in the first 10 years. Subsequent construction would be minimal and less intensive compared to the initial phases. Construction activity is assumed to begin as early as 2020 with full implementation of the project to be completed over a 20-year timeframe. For a detailed description of model input and output parameters, and assumptions, refer to Appendix C.
Operational Emissions Operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Project-related operational emissions of criteria air pollutants were estimated for the following sources: area sources (e.g., landscaping- related fuel combustion sources), energy use (i.e., electricity and natural gas consumption), water use, solid waste, and mobile sources, associated with additional and expanded SMUD facilities.
Regarding building energy use and associated emission of criteria air pollutants, some existing buildings would be replaced with new buildings that would comply with current building code, which is much more stringent compared to codes in place when these building were constructed (i.e., 1980s and 1990s). Thus, improvements related to new building construction were modeled by estimating existing energy use and related emissions from a 2002 energy use survey (California Energy Commission [CEC] 2006).1 Criteria air pollutant emission reduction associated with improved efficiency of the replaced buildings were credited to the overall project-generated emissions.
The project’s level of electricity and natural gas usage were based on 2016 Title 24- adjusted consumption rates provided by CalEEMod for each land use type. Adjustments were based on the CEC’s estimate that non-residential buildings are 5 percent more efficient than 2013 Title 24 standards (CEC 2015). Additionally, for buildings to be constructed as part of project implementation, it was assumed, as part of the HQCMP, that all new buildings would obtain a Green Building Council’s Leadership Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating of, at a minimum, silver with a goal of platinum. Although the LEED certification of these new buildings would result in potential energy reductions, LEED certification can be achieved from a wide variety of design measures that would not necessarily result in energy reductions, such as the use of recycled materials or protection of habitat on a project site. Therefore, because it is unknown as to what particular measures would be incorporated to achieve the LEED certifications,
1 Due to the age of the majority of on-site structures, energy use information pertaining to buildings constructed proximate to that time was used.
Page 3.2-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
no additional energy reductions beyond the 2016 Title 24 adjustment were made in the energy-related emissions modeling.
Operational mobile-source GHG emissions were modeled based on the estimated annual VMT resulting from increases in SMUD employment. VMT data was available in the traffic study conducted for the project (Fehr & Peers 2017). See Section 3.10, “Transportation and Circulation,” for further details.
The potential for vehicle trips generated by the project to contribute to CO Hotspots within the project area was evaluated using SMAQMD’s suggested screening criteria methodology based on the projected level of service (LOS) at intersections impacted by project implementation. LOS is a qualitative metric for identifying the quality of traffic services and level of congestion on roadways and intersections. For the purpose of the CO Hotspot analysis, only LOS levels at intersections were analyzed, which looks at the total delay time for vehicles at intersections. As established by SMAQMD, the following criteria were used to determine whether CO emissions as a result project implementation would cause a significant impact.
First Tier The project will result in a less-than-significant impact to air quality for local CO if:
• Traffic generated by the project will not result in deterioration of intersection to LOS E or F, and
• The project will not contribute additional traffic to an intersection that already operates at LOS of E or F. If the first tier of screening criteria is not met, then the second tier of screening criteria shall be examined.
Second Tier If all of the following criteria are met, the project will result in a less than-significant impact to air quality for local CO.
• The project will not result in an affected intersection experiencing more than 31,600 vehicles per hour;
• The project will not contribute traffic to a tunnel, parking garage, bridge underpass, urban street canyon, or below-grade roadway; or other locations where horizontal or vertical mixing of air will be substantially limited; and
• The mix of vehicle types at the intersection is not anticipated to be substantially different from the County average (as identified by the EMFAC or CalEEMod models).
Analysis of CO emissions was conducted using the above screening criteria and LOS data included in the traffic study conducted for the project (Fehr & Peers 2017).
Page 3.2-17 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.2-4 summarizes the project-related activities for which emissions were estimated; the model, protocol, and source of emission factors used; and the key input parameters on which each activity’s emissions were determined.
Table 3.2-4 Methodologies Used to Estimate Project-Related Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Model/Protocol/ Category and Source Key Input Parameter(s) Source of Emission Factors Construction Emissions CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, Demolition Total sf of demolition SMAQMD CEQA Guidance CalEEMod Version 2016.3, Total sf of buildings constructed, Building Construction SMAQMD CEQA Guidance Construction timeline Operational Emissions All Emissions Sources (except Energy CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2, Land Use, Size, Daily VMT, Use) SMAQMD CEQA Guidance Energy Use Percent energy use reduction Energy Use reduction for Replaced Reduction estimate provided by CEC from Title 24 Building Code Buildings Studies Updates Notes: VMT = vehicle miles travelled; sf= square feet Models: CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2 Source: Methodologies researched and identified by Ascent Environmental in 2017.
Design Considerations of the Proposed Headquarter Campus Master Plan The draft HQCMP includes a series of policies and design features that would serve to reduce criteria, TAC, and GHG emissions associated with campus operations. The majority of these features included in the HQCMP are within Section 5.5 “Sustainable Architecture Strategies” and are considered part of the project, including:
• Daylighting: Designing new buildings to utilize natural lighting will help reduce lighting energy use and heating demands needed for the building as well as saving operational costs for new buildings.
• Natural Ventilation: Designing new buildings to use natural ventilation will help reduce heating and cooling-related energy use and costs associated with building operations.
• High Performance Building Envelope: A high performance building envelope will help improve the energy efficiency of the heating and cooling systems within building, helping to reduce operational energy use and cost.
• Adaptive Comfort: The inclusions of adaptive comfort planning into building climate control systems will help reduce energy use through adaptive heating and cooling use based not on preset temperature but rather the varying comfort needs of building occupants.
Page 3.2-18 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Plug Load Reduction: Plug load reduction strategies would help reduce building energy use through reductions in plug-load energy loss which occurs regardless of whether equipment (i.e. computers) are in use or not.
• Heat Pumps: Heat pumps capture naturally occurring heat in the air or ground and use this energy to heat or cool buildings, which is often more efficient than generating heat.
• Chilled Beams: Chilled beams are a type of HVAC system which utilizes the principles of heat transfer using water, to heat or cool building through large pipes “chilled beams” suspended in rooms within a building.
• High Volume Low-Speed Fans: The fans use aerodynamic, extruded aluminum airfoils designed to provide the optimum airflow at the lowest possible operating cost.
• PV Solar Arrays: Photovoltaic (PV) panels are a simple, low-maintenance method for producing on-site renewable energy and reducing GHG emissions associated with energy use.
• Solar Thermal: Solar thermal system work by absorbing natural thermal radiation through liquids and transferring this heat to supplement a buildings water heating requirement.
• Fuel Cells: Fuel cell uses the chemical energy of hydrogen or another fuel to cleanly and efficiently produce electricity and can be used emergency power generation rather than conventional emergency diesel generators.
• Building Automation: Building automation systems can help reduce a buildings energy use by scanning and rebalancing energy demand 9lighting and heating) in a building only where it is need by building occupants rather than supplying energy to the entire building.
• Water Conservation and Re-use: Water conservation and re-use strategies can help buildings reduce water-related energy demand and conserve water resources.
• Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Stations: The SMUD headquarters already includes many EV charging stations for SMUD employees and the public, with many more planned as part of the Headquarters Rehabilitation Project. The HQCMP would include even more new EV charging stations relative to SMUD’s EV adoption growth forecast for fleet and employee vehicles.
Page 3.2-19 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Issues or Potential Impacts Not Discussed Further
Odors The project site is located within an existing urban area and does not include the siting of new sensitive receptors within the project area. Project implementation does not include the siting of any new facilities considered to be odor emitting sources (e.g., wastewater treatment plant, landfill). Therefore, odor impacts related to project implementation are not discussed further.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.2-1: Short-term, construction-generated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5.
Project implementation would result in short-term construction-related emissions associated with the construction of new buildings and retrofitting of existing facilities on the SMUD Headquarters Campus. Based on modeling results, NOX emissions were estimated at 50 lb/day during construction activity and would be below the significance threshold of 85 lb/day. Construction activity would also generate 9.4 lb/day of PM10 and 5.8 lb/day of PM2.5 and would exceed SMAQMD’s thresholds of zero for these pollutants. Therefore, this impact would be significant.
Project implementation would result in short-term construction-related emissions associated with redevelopment and new development of facilities on the project site. Anticipated construction activity includes the demolition of two existing buildings on the project site (i.e., Childcare Center and Auxiliary Building), refurbishing of the campus’ Central Plant, and the construction of five new buildings (i.e., Community Energy/Innovation Center, Learning Center, Warehouse, Auxiliary Building, and Flex Space) on the project site over the 20-year timeframe of the project. An additional 20,000 sf of office space would be added to the existing SMUD Corporate Center. As noted in the Analysis Methodology section above, given the space constraints of the project site, a maximum of 50,000 sf of construction activity would take place in any one year. Total construction emissions associated with construction activity are shown in Table 3.2-5.
Table 3.2-5 Summary of Modeled Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Project Construction Activities
NOX (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) Maximum Daily Emissions 50 9.4 5.8 SMAQMD Daily Thresholds of Significance 85 0 (80)1 0 (82)2 Maximum Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) - .4 .3 SMAQMD Annual Thresholds of Significance N/A 14.6 15 Notes: Modeled values represent maximum daily emissions that would occur over the duration of the construction period. See Appendix C for detail on model inputs, assumptions, and project specific modeling parameters. 1. If all feasible BMPs are applied, then the thresholds are 80 pounds/day and 14.6 tons/year
Page 3.2-20 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.2-5 Summary of Modeled Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Associated with Project Construction Activities
NOX (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) 2. If all feasible BMPs are applied, then 82 pounds/day and 15 tons/year ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX =oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; lb/day = pounds per day; SMAQMD = Sacramento Air Quality Management District Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in December 2018
Based on modeling results shown in Table 3.2-5 construction-related activity associated with the project would emit 50 lb/day of NOx, 9.4 lb/day of PM10, and 5.8 lb/day of PM2.5. Emission of these pollutants are associated with the use of heavy-duty construction equipment for the various phases of construction, emissions associated with vendor and material transport truck trips, and emissions associated with worker commute trips to and from the project site. Emissions of NOx are primarily associated with the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and vehicle trips while PM10 and PM2.5 are associated with both the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and fugitive dust which is generated during certain phases of construction (e.g., grading, scraping).
Emission of NOx, during periods with the most intensive construction activity, would not exceed the SMAQMD threshold of 85 lb/day for this pollutant. Emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 would exceed SMAQMD thresholds without the incorporation of feasible BMPs. Project construction would result in dust emissions that could contribute substation ally to the nonattainment status of the SVAB for PM10 and PM2.5. This impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.2-1: Incorporate dust control measures. During all construction activities, the construction contractor shall comply with the following measures:
• Water all exposed surfaces two times daily. Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking areas, staging areas, and access roads.
• Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways should be covered.
• Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible trackout mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph) or to the extent feasible.
• All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Page 3.2-21 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Significance after Mitigation Project implementation would result in PM10 and PM2.5 emissions related to construction activity that would exceed SMAQD’s thresholds for these pollutants absent implementation of feasible BMPs. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1 would reduce construction-related dust emissions by up to 54 percent and constitute implementation. With incorporation of Mitigation Measure 3.2-1, the project would not exceed applicable SMAQMD thresholds of significance or contribute substantially to the nonattainment status of the SVAB and this impact would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to construction of the elements of Phase 1 of the HQCMP would be required.
Impact 3.2-2: Long-term, operation-related emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursor emissions.
Project implementation would result in operational-related emissions of criteria air pollutants from a variety of sources, although primarily from commute-related emissions associated with increase in SMUD employment. Long-term operational activities would result in 10.5 lb/day of NOx, 8.3 lb/day of ROG, 16.2 lb/day of PM10, and 4.4 lb/day of PM2.5. These daily emissions would be below SMAQMDs operational significance thresholds. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Operational activities associated with the project would generate emissions from a variety of sources including area-source emissions from the operation of landscape maintenance equipment; energy-source emissions from the consumption of electricity and natural gas for building energy, and vehicle exhaust emissions from worker commute trips associated with the project site. Buildout of all SMUD improvements and additional facilities is anticipated to occur over a 20-year planning horizon.
The project includes the development of new on-site structures, the retrofitting of the campus’ Central Plant, and an addition to one existing building on the SMUD Headquarters Campus. All new buildings on the campus would be general office buildings or warehouses to provide space for current and future SMUD employees, customer service uses for SMUD customers, and additional operational warehouse space. The increase in total facility space on the SMUD Headquarters Campus would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants associated with consumption of electricity and use of natural gas for heating and hot water. However, some of the existing buildings on the project site would be replaced with new buildings that would comply with current building code which is much more stringent compared to codes in place when these building were constructed (i.e., 1980s and 1990s). Thus, improvements related to new building construction would result in energy use reductions and associated emission of criteria air pollutants.
Section 5.5 “Sustainable Architectural Strategies” of the SMUD HQMP includes a series of design features that serve to reduce energy use from new buildings to be developed on the project site. These features include the consideration of building orientation and
Page 3.2-22 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
daylighting to provide increased natural lighting and heating for buildings, the use of natural ventilation to reduce energy use associated with climate control, the use of solar PV arrays and solar thermal collectors for energy use, building automation as it relates to reducing energy use, water conservation and re-use, and the inclusion of energy efficient heating and cooling equipment. Although these features, if included, would result in energy use reductions, the specific proposed measures to be included in new building designs is not known at this time and, therefore, were not incorporated in modeling. Table 3.2-6 summarizes the daily emissions associated with operation of the project categorized by emission sector activities.
As shown in Table 3.2-6, daily operational emissions associated with project operation would emit criteria air pollutants for the four pollutants currently in non-attainment status within SVAB. The primary source of emissions would be attributed to mobile-sources from SMUD employee commutes for up to 835 new employees. Project implementation would result in emissions of 10.5 lb/day of NOx and 8.3 lb/day of ROG, which is below SMAQMDs threshold of significance of 65 lb/day for these pollutants. Project implementation would also result in the emission of 16.2 lb/day of PM10 and 4.4 lb/day of PM2.5, which is above SMAQMD’s operational significance threshold for PM10 and PM2.5 of zero. However, when SMAQMDs recommended BMP for operational PM reductions is applied, the applicable significance thresholds are 80 lb/day for PM10 and 82 lb/day for PM2.5. SMAQMD’s BMPs for PM reduction include compliance with energy efficiency standards for natural gas space and water heating within the State’s building code as well as inclusion of bicycle parking, parking for fuel efficient vehicles and electric vehicle charging. As part of the project design, these measures have been included and would be considered to be in place for the purpose of this analysis as they would be required through the building permit and inspection process.
Table 3.2-6 Summary of Operational Emissions of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (lb/day)1 Emissions Source ROG NOX PM10 PM2.5 Area 5.9 <1 <1 <1 Energy <1 <1 <1 <1 Mobile 2.3 10.5 16.1 4.4 Total 8.3 10.5 16.2 4.4 SMAQMD Thresholds 65 65 0 (80)2 0 (82)3 Notes: lb/day = pounds per day; SMAQMD = Sacramento Air Quality Management District; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; PM2.5 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less 1. Modeled values represent maximum daily emissions that would occur on a worst-case day. See Appendix C for detail on model inputs, assumptions, and project specific modeling parameters. 2. SMAQMD provides BMPs for reducing operational PM10 emissions. If these practices are applied to a project, the threshold for PM10 is 80 pounds/day and 14.6 tons/year. 3. SMAQMD provides BMPs for reducing operational PM2.5 emissions. If these practices are applied to a project, the threshold for PM2.5 is 82 pounds/day and 15 tons/year. Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2018
Page 3.2-23 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Project implementation would generate emissions of all four criteria air pollutants currently under non-attainment status (i.e., ROG, NOx, PM10, PM2.5). However, based on project characteristics and design features included in the project to reduce energy use and reduce mobile-source emission (e.g., alternative fuel, EV charging stations), operational daily emissions would be below the thresholds of significance for all applicable criteria air pollutants and the project would not result in a substantial contribution to the nonattainment status of the SVAB. Therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact 3.2-3: Mobile-source CO concentrations.
Project implementation would include the addition of up to 835 new SMUD employees over a 20-year planning horizon, resulting in an increase in associated employee commute trips. Based on the traffic study conducted for the project, this increase in vehicle trips would not result in a downgrading of level of service at project-affected intersections to a degree that would result in localized CO concentrations. Based on SMAQMDs recommended screening methodology, this would not result in CO emissions that would contribute to the exceedance of the applicable threshold of significance and, therefore, this impact would be considered less than significant.
Project implementation would result in development of new office space on the project site over a 20-year timeframe, resulting in an increase of up to 835 new SMUD employees. The addition of these new employees would result in increased commute trips to and from the project location, resulting in increases in traffic at intersections near the project site. As a result, localized concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO) may increase because of these additional vehicle trips on the surrounding roadway network. Localized concentrations of CO at high-volume, congested intersections are of particular concern because these are locations where CO-emitting vehicles could idle for extended periods of time. Transport of CO is extremely limited because it disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions. However, under certain meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near intersections may reach unhealthy levels at nearby sensitive land uses—referred to as CO hotspots—, such as residential units, schools, and childcare facilities. Thus, high local CO concentrations are considered to have a direct influence on the receptors they affect.
SMAQMD has established two tiers of screening criteria to determine whether increased traffic congestion could potentially result in a localized CO hotspot at a congested intersection (SMAQMD 2016c). If the first tier of screening criteria is not met, then the second tier may be applied. It is important to note that CO hotspots are a function of CO emissions and air dispersion and not necessarily traffic flow conditions, therefore, it would require a substantial number of vehicles delayed for extended periods of time to form a CO hotspot.
Page 3.2-24 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Based on the traffic analysis conducted for the project (see Section 3.10, “Transportation and Circulation”), the project would not result in the downgrading of any project-affected intersection to LOS E or F. Traffic volume increases as a result of project implementation would result in a LOS downgrading at only one intersection near the project site at 65th and Q streets (i.e., from LOS B to LOS C). Based on the results of the traffic analysis, the Second Tier screening criteria was not applied because the traffic impact conditions as a result of the project would not meet the First Tier screening criteria for CO hotspots.
Project implementation would not generate traffic volume increases resulting in the downgrading of any project-affected intersection to LOS E or F. CO emissions would not contribute to the exceedance of the applicable threshold of significance and this impact would be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact 3.2-4: Exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs.
Project implementation would result in emissions of TACs from short-term construction activity and long-term operational activities. Construction activities would be intermittent and temporary in nature and are not anticipated to the exceed SMAQMD significance thresholds. Operational TAC emissions are primarily associated with the potential use of emergency backup diesel generators and increases in vehicular traffic associated with increases in employment. These operational emissions are not anticipated to exceed the SMAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Short-term Construction-Related Emissions The project would result in short-term exhaust emissions from off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment (i.e., diesel PM) for various construction activities (e.g., demolition, paving, building construction); on-road truck travel; and other miscellaneous construction activities. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel PM was identified as a TAC by ARB in 1998. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for any exposed receptor. Thus, the risks estimated for an exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to guidance from the California Office of Environmental Health and Assessment’s (OEHHA’s) Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, a 30-year exposure duration is used for estimating cancer risk at residential land uses (OEHHA 2015). Construction activity is anticipated to take place over the 20-year timeframe of the project, with the majority of this activity occurring in the first 10 years of project activity but overall construction
Page 3.2-25 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
activities would be fairly minor and spread out over time, not resulting in intensive construction activities for extended periods of time.
During the construction phase of project implementation, the primary source of diesel PM emissions would be the use of heavy-duty construction-equipment. Diesel-powered, off-road equipment operated on site would generate up to 2.2 lb/day of PM10 exhaust. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1a: Onsite GHG Reduction Measures, included in Section 3.6 “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy,” would require the use of Renewable Diesel (RD) in construction equipment during project implementation as well as other measures to reduce the use of fossil fuel during construction. The use of RD, as proposed in Mitigation Measure 3.6-1a, is estimated to reduce PM10 exhaust emissions by approximately 34 percent (SMAQMD 2016c). Additionally, given the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM (Zhu et al. 2002), and the temporary and intermittent duration of construction activity, it is not anticipated that the project would expose sensitive receptors to a substantial incremental increase TAC emission-associated health risks that exceed 10 in 1 million for carcinogenic risk (i.e., the risk of contracting cancer) and/or a noncarcinogenic hazard index of 1.0 or greater.
Long-Term Operation-Related Emissions Project implementation would result in long term operational emissions of TACs from several activities associated with the SMUD Headquarters campus. These include mobile source emissions from employee commute trips, additional back-up diesel generators and stationary equipment associated with new buildings and facilities.
Regarding operational increases in mobile emissions, additional employee commute trips were modeled and would result in less than one pound per day of PM10 exhaust emissions. Further, employee trips would not be concentrated on any single road, thus associated exhaust emissions would not result in substantial concentrations on associated roadways. Additionally, SMUD currently has EV charging stations on the headquarters campus for SMUD employees, and as part of SMUD’s sustainable practices and a component of the HQCMP, SMUD would continue to install additional EV charging stations at new parking facilities, further encouraging the use of EVs from current and new SMUD employees. Subsequently, the future use of EVs by SMUD employees would help to reduce TAC emissions associated with new commute trips. Operational increase in employee commute trips would not be considered substantial.
The project site currently has permits to operate printing presses, power co-generation facilities and boiler units, which are also sources of TACs (SMAQMD 2016b). The existing Central Plant on the project site currently includes 5 boiler units that provide heating and hot water to facilities on the project site as well as two co-generation plants which generate electricity for facilities on the project site. When in use, co-generation units and boilers generate criteria pollutants including PM10 emissions through the combustion of natural gas. Permits for use of this equipment are administered through SMAQMD and are subject to regulations regarding permissible emissions levels from stationary equipment. As part of project implementation, the Central Plant will be
Page 3.2-26 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
retrofitted to accommodate the new buildings on the campus and would include upgrades for new more efficient equipment for heating, cooling and power generation purposes on the site. Although details about the specific equipment upgrades that would occur is unknown at this time, these improvements would lead to reductions in the emission of criteria air pollutants and TACs through the increased energy efficiency of the Central Plant and application of SMAQMD’s Best Available Control Technology requirements at the time of permitting. Thus, with regards to project-generated TAC sources, implementation of the HQCMP would not result in new stationary sources but would replace existing ones.
The project site also currently has permits for the use of emergency diesel generators, for emergency power generation for select buildings and assets. Emergency diesel generators are also a source of TACs, specifically diesel exhaust PM10. Considering that these generators are used only in emergency situations to provide backup power to the SMUD Headquarters and the Auxiliary Building, it is not anticipated that the use of these generators for emergency situations would result in emissions above SMAQMD’s operational daily emissions threshold for PM10. Nonetheless, back-up generators currently exist on the site and the project would not result in additional sources over existing conditions.
Project implementation would result in new TAC emission sources associated with short-term construction activity as well as long-term operational emissions associated new employee commute trips (i.e., vehicular exhaust). Existing stationary equipment would be replaced with new equipment, reducing existing TAC levels. The project would not result TAC emission that would expose any off-site receptors to substantial concentrations. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Page 3.2-27 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3.2-28 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.3 Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources
This section analyzes and evaluates the potential impacts associated with implementation of the HQCMP on known and unknown cultural resources. Cultural resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects generally older than 50 years and considered to be important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. They include pre-historic resources, historic-era resources, and “tribal cultural resources” (the latter as defined by Assembly Bill (AB) 52, Statutes of 2014, in Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21074).
Archaeological resources are locations where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of prehistoric or historic-era physical remains (e.g., stone tools, bottles, former roads, house foundations). Historical (or architectural) resources include standing buildings (e.g., houses, barns, outbuildings, cabins) and intact structures (e.g., dams, bridges, roads, districts), or landscapes. A cultural landscape is defined as a geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife therein), associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. Tribal cultural resources include site features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places or objects, which are of cultural value to a tribe.
Regulatory Setting
Federal
National Park Service Federal protection of resources is legislated by (a) the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as amended by 16 U.S. Code 470, (b) the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, and (c) the Advisory Council on Historical Preservation. These laws and organizations maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Section 106 of the NHPA and accompanying regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) constitute the main federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed in, or may be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The NRHP is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. It is administered by the National Park Service and includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, and cultural districts that are considered significant at the national, state, or local level.
The formal criteria (36 CFR 60.4) for determining NRHP eligibility are as follows:
1. The property is at least 50 years old (however, properties under 50 years of age that are of exceptional importance or are contributors to a district can also be included in the NRHP).
Page 3.3-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
2. It retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associations.
3. It possesses at least one of the following characteristics:
A. Association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history (events).
B. Association with the lives of persons significant in the past (persons).
C. Distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant, distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction (architecture).
D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history (information potential).
Listing in the NRHP does not entail specific protection or assistance for a property but it does guarantee recognition in planning for federal or federally-assisted projects, eligibility for federal tax benefits, and qualification for federal historic preservation assistance. Additionally, project effects on properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.
The National Register Bulletin also provides guidance in the evaluation of archaeological site significance. If a heritage property cannot be placed within a particular theme or time period, and thereby lacks “focus,” it is considered not eligible for the NRHP. In further expanding upon the generalized National Register criteria, evaluation standards for linear features (such as roads, trails, fence lines, railroads, ditches, flumes, etc.) are considered in terms of four related criteria that account for specific elements that define engineering and construction methods of linear features: (1) size and length; (2) presence of distinctive engineering features and associated properties; (3) structural integrity; and (4) setting. The highest probability for NRHP eligibility exists within the intact, longer segments, where multiple criteria coincide.
Cultural Landscapes Under the NRHP, historic properties may be defined as sites, buildings, structures (such as bridges or dams), objects, or districts, including cultural landscapes. A cultural landscape differs from a historic building or district in that it is understood through the spatial organization of the property, which is created by the landscape’s cultural and natural features. Some features may create viewsheds or barriers (such as a fence), and others create spaces or “rooms” (such as an arrangement of buildings and structures around a lawn area). Some features, such as grading and topography, underscore the site’s development in relationship to the natural setting. To be listed in the NRHP, a cultural landscape must meet one of the four evaluation criteria and must retain its integrity.
Page 3.3-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
A cultural landscape is defined as "a geographic area, including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values." There are four general types of cultural landscapes, not mutually exclusive: historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes.
Character Defining Features For a property to be eligible for national, state, or local designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. The Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes (Guidelines) state that cultural landscapes are composed of a collection of features which are organized in space. Both landscape features and buildings and structures are able to convey the character of a cultural landscape. Other elements may include small-scale features such as individual fountains or statuary, or patterns of fields and forests which define the spatial character. Some features may be more important than others. But overall, the Guidelines state that it is the arrangement and interrelationship of these character-defining features as they existed during the period of significance that is most critical to consider prior to treatment. (The period of significance is the span of time in which a property attained the significance for which it meets the NRHC or CRHR criteria.) Both the function and visual relationship between spaces is integral to the historic character of a property. In addition, per the Guidelines, it is important to recognize that spatial relationships may change over time because of a variety of factors, including: environmental impacts (e.g., drought, seismic activity), plant growth and succession, and changes in land use or technology.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) provide guidance for working with historic properties. The Secretary’s Standards are used by lead agencies to evaluate proposed rehabilitative work on historic properties. The Secretary’s Standards are a useful analytic tool for understanding and describing the potential impacts of proposed changes to historic resources. Projects that comply with the Secretary’s Standards benefit from a regulatory presumption that they would not result in a significant impact to a historic resource. Projects that do not comply with the Secretary’s Standards may or may not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic property.
In 1992 the Secretary’s Standards were revised so they could be applied to all types of historic resources, including landscapes. They were reduced to four sets of treatments to guide work on historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The four distinct treatments are defined as follows:
• Preservation focuses on the maintenance and repair of existing historic materials and retention of a property’s form as it has evolved over time.
Page 3.3-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Rehabilitation acknowledges the need to alter or add to a historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property’s historic character.
• Restoration depicts a property at a particular period of time in its history, while removing evidence of other periods.
• Reconstruction re-creates vanished or non-surviving portions of a property for interpretive purposes.
State
California Register of Historic Resources The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) established a list of those properties which are to be protected from substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1). A historical resource may be listed in the CRHR if it meets any of the following criteria:
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in California’s past.
3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value.
4. It has yielded or is likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.
The CRHR includes properties that are listed or have been formally determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, State Historical Landmarks, and eligible Points of Historical Interest. Other resources require nomination for inclusion in the CRHR. These may include resources contributing to the significance of a local historic district, individual historical resources, historical resources identified in historic resource surveys conducted in accordance with State Historic Preservation Office procedures, historic resources or districts designated under a local ordinance consistent with Commission procedures, and local landmarks or historic properties designated under local ordinance.
California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on both “historical resources,” “unique archaeological resources,” and “tribal cultural resources.” Pursuant to PRC Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” and PRC Section 21084.2, a “project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether projects would have effects on unique archaeological resources.
Page 3.3-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Historical Resources “Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC Section 21084.1; determining significant impacts to historical and archaeological resources is described in the State CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15064.5[a] and [b]). Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), historical resources include the following:
1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1).
2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource will be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 5024.1), including the following:
a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
b) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
4) The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
Unique Archaeological Resources CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will affect unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21083.2, subdivision (g), states that unique
Page 3.3-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
Tribal Cultural Resources CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will affect tribal cultural resources. PRC Section 21074 states the following:
a) “Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
1) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR.
B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. b) A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape. c) A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
Health and Safety Code, Section 7052 and 7050.5 Section 7052 of the Health and Safety Code states that the disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. Section 7050.5 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine
Page 3.3-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
whether the remains are those of a Native American. If determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC).
California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act The California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act applies to both State and private lands. The Act requires that upon discovery of human remains, that construction or excavation activity cease and that the county coroner be notified. If the remains are of a Native American, the coroner must notify the NAHC. The NAHC then notifies those persons most likely to be descended from the Native American’s remains. The Act stipulates the procedures the descendants may follow for treating or disposing of the remains and associated grave goods.
Public Resource Code Section 5097 PRC Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of human remains on nonfederal land. The disposition of Native American burial falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC. Section 5097.5 of the Code states the following:
No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate pale ontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
Assembly Bill 52 AB 52, signed by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., in September of 2014, establishes a new class of resources under CEQA: “tribal cultural resources” (TCRs). AB 52, as codified in PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, and 21082.3, requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review must, upon written request of a California Native American Tribe, begin consultation once the lead agency determines that the application for the project is complete, prior to the issuance of an NOP of an EIR or notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. AB 52 also requires revision to CEQA Appendix G, the environmental checklist. This revision would create a new category for TCRs. As defined in PRC Section 21074, to be considered a TCR, a resource must be either:
1. listed or determined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic resources; or
2. a resource that the lead agency determines, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to treat as a tribal cultural resource pursuant to the criteria in PRC Section 50241(c). PRC Section 5024.1(c) provides that a resource meets criteria for listing as an historic resource in the California Register if any of the following apply:
Page 3.3-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
(1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
(3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Local
City of Sacramento General Plan The following policies are considered relevant to the project and cultural resources in the project area:
• Policy HCR 2.1.1: Identification. The City shall identify historic and cultural resources, including individual properties, districts, and sites (e.g., archaeological sites), to ensure adequate protection of these resources.
• Policy HCR 2.1.2: Applicable Laws and Regulations. The City shall ensure compliance with City, State, and Federal historic preservation laws, regulations, and codes to protect and assist in the preservation of historic and archaeological resources, including the use of the California Historical Building Code as applicable. Unless listed in the Sacramento, California, or National registers, the City shall require discretionary projects involving resources 50 years and older to evaluate their eligibility for inclusion on the California or Sacramento registers for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.
• Policy HCR 2.1.3: Consultation. The City shall consult with appropriate organizations and individuals (e.g., California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Information Centers, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), the CA Office of Planning and Research (OPR) “Tribal Consultation Guidelines,” etc.,) and shall establish a public outreach policy to minimize potential impacts to historic and cultural resources.
• Policy HCR 2.1.5: National, California, and Sacramento Registers. The City shall support efforts to pursue eligibility and listing for qualified resources including historic districts and individual resources under the appropriate National, California, or Sacramento registers.
• Policy HCR 2.1.10: Early Project Consultation. The City shall minimize potential impacts to historic and cultural resources by consulting with property owners, land developers, and the building industry early in the development review process.
Page 3.3-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Policy HCR 2.1.11: Compatibility with Historic Context. The City shall review proposed new development, alterations, and rehabilitation/remodels for compatibility with the surrounding historic context. The City shall pay special attention to the scale, massing, and relationship of proposed new development to surrounding historic resources.
• Policy HCR 2.1.15: Demolition. The City shall consider demolition of historic resources as a last resort, to be permitted only if rehabilitation of the resource is not feasible, demolition is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, or the public benefits outweigh the loss of the historic resource.
• Policy HCR 2.1.16: Archaeological & Cultural Resources. The City shall develop or ensure compliance with protocols that protect or mitigate impacts to archaeological and cultural resources including prehistoric resources.
• Policy HCR 2.1.17: Preservation Project Review. The City shall review and evaluate proposed development projects to minimize impacts on identified historic and cultural resources, including projects on Landmark parcels and parcels within Historic Districts, based on applicable adopted criteria and standards.
Sacramento Planning and Development Code Chapter 17.604 Chapter 17.604 (Historic Preservation) of the City’s Planning and Development Code includes provisions for the identification of significant historic, prehistoric and cultural resources, structures, districts, sites, landscapes, and properties within the City. This chapter also includes mechanisms and procedures to protect and encourage the preservation of the city’s historic and cultural resources, as well as established the preservation commission and the responsibilities of the City’s Preservation Director.
The following are the criteria for listing a feature on the Sacramento Register of Historic and Cultural Resources under Section 17.604.210:
A. Listing on the Sacramento register—Landmarks. A nominated resource shall be listed on the Sacramento register as a landmark if the city council finds, after holding the hearing required by this chapter, that all of the requirements set forth below are satisfied:
1. Requirements.
a. The nominated resource meets one or more of the following criteria:
i. it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of the city, the region, the state or the nation;
ii. it is associated with the lives of persons significant in the city’s past;
Page 3.3-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
iii. it embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction;
iv. it represents the work of an important creative individual or master;
v. it possesses high artistic values; or
vi. it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in the prehistory or history of the city, the region, the state or the nation.
b. The nominated resource has integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship and association. Integrity shall be judged with reference to the particular criterion or criteria specified in subsection A.1.a of this section.
c. The nominated resource has significant historic or architectural worth, and its designation as a landmark is reasonable, appropriate and necessary to promote, protect and further the goals and purposes of this chapter.
2. Factors to be considered. In determining whether to list a nominated resource on the Sacramento register as a landmark, the factors below shall be considered.
a. A structure removed from its original location is eligible if it is significant primarily for its architectural value or it is the most important surviving structure associated with a historic person or event.
b. A birthplace or grave is eligible if it is that of a historical figure of outstanding importance and there is no other appropriate site or structure directly associated with his or her productive life.
c. A reconstructed building is eligible if the reconstruction is historically accurate, if the structure is presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and if no other original structure survives that has the same association.
d. Properties that are primarily commemorative in intent are eligible if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value invests such properties with their own historical significance.
e. Properties achieving significance within the past 50 years are eligible if such properties are of exceptional importance.
B. Listing on the Sacramento Register—Historic districts. A geographic area nominated as a historic district shall be listed on the Sacramento register as a historic district if the city council finds, after holding the hearing required by this chapter, that all of the requirements set forth below are satisfied:
Page 3.3-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
1. Requirements.
a. the area is a geographically definable area; or
b. the area possesses either:
i. A significant concentration or continuity of buildings unified by: (A) past events or (B) aesthetically by plan or physical development; or
ii. The area is associated with an event, person, or period significant or important to city history; or
c. the designation of the geographic area as a historic district is reasonable, appropriate and necessary to protect, promote and further the goals and purposes of this chapter and is not inconsistent with other goals and policies of the city.
2. Factors to be considered. In determining whether to list a geographic area on the Sacramento register as a historic district, the following factors shall be considered:
a. A historic district should have integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship and association; or
b. The collective historic value of the buildings and structures in a historic district taken together may be greater than the historic value of each individual building or structure.
C. Listing on the Sacramento register—Contributing resources. A nominated resource shall be listed on the Sacramento register as a contributing resource if the council finds, after holding the hearing required by this chapter, that all of the following requirements are satisfied:
1. The nominated resource is within a historic district;
2. The nominated resource either embodies the significant features and characteristics of the historic district or adds to the historical associations, historical architectural qualities or archaeological values identified for the historic district;
3. The nominated resource was present during the period of historical significance of the historic district and relates to the documented historical significance of the historic district;
4. The nominated resource either possesses historic integrity or is capable of yielding important information about the period of historical significance of the historic district; and
Page 3.3-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
5. The nominated resource has important historic or architectural worth, and its designation as a contributing resource is reasonable, appropriate and necessary to protect, promote and further the goals and purposes of this chapter.
Environmental Setting
Paleontological Setting
Significant nonrenewable vertebrate and invertebrate fossils and unique geologic units have been documented throughout California. The fossil yielding potential of a particular area is highly dependent on the geologic age and origin of the underlying rocks (refer to geologic timescale in Table 3.3-1). Paleontological potential refers to the likelihood that a rock unit will yield a unique or significant paleontological resource. All sedimentary rocks, some volcanic rocks, and some low-grade metamorphic rocks have potential to yield significant paleontological resources. Depending on location, the paleontological potential of subsurface materials generally increases with depth beneath the surface, as well as with proximity to known fossiliferous deposits.
Pleistocene or older (older than 11,000 years) continental sedimentary deposits are considered as having a high paleontological potential while Holocene-age deposits (less than 10,000 years old) are generally considered to have a low paleontological potential because they are geologically immature and are unlikely to have fossilized the remains of organisms. Metamorphic and igneous rocks have a low paleontological potential, either because they formed beneath the surface of the earth (such as granite), or because they have been altered under high heat and pressures, chaotically mixed or severely fractured. Generally, the processes that form igneous and metamorphic rocks are too destructive to preserve identifiable fossil remains.
Table 3.3-1 Divisions of Geologic Time Time in Millions of Era Period Years Ago Epoch (approximately) < 0.01 Holocene Quaternary 2.6 Pleistocene 5.3 Pliocene Cenozoic 23 Miocene Tertiary 34 Oligocene 56 Eocene 65 Paleocene Cretaceous 145 — Mesozoic Jurassic 200 — Triassic 251 — Permian 299 — Paleozoic Carboniferous 359 — Devonian 416 —
Page 3.3-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.3-1 Divisions of Geologic Time Time in Millions of Era Period Years Ago Epoch (approximately) Silurian 444 — Ordovician 488 — Cambrian 542 — Precambrian 2,500 — Source: USGS 2010
The project site is located within the Riverbank Formation. This formation is Pleistocene in age; estimates place the age between 130,000 and 450,000 years ago. In the project vicinity, the Riverbank Formation forms higher alluvial fans and terraces of major rivers and can be divided into upper and lower members. Sediments in the Riverbank Formation consist of weathered reddish gravel, sand, and silt that form alluvial terraces and fans. In the Sacramento Valley, this formation contains more mafic rock fragments than the San Joaquin Valley and thus tends toward stronger soil-profile developments that are more easily distinguishable from the younger Modesto Formation (SMUD 2015).
Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits are sedimentary in nature; sedimentary alluvial deposits frequently contain fossils. The Pleistocene epoch, known as the “great ice age,” began approximately 1.8 million years ago. Based on his survey of vertebrate fauna from the nonmarine late Cenozoic deposits of the San Francisco Bay region, two major divisions of Pleistocene-age fossils have been recognized: the Irvingtonian (older Pleistocene fauna) and the Rancholabrean (younger Pleistocene fauna) (SMUD 2015).
These two divisions of Quaternary Cenozoic vertebrate fossils are widely recognized today in the field of paleontology. The age of the Rancholabrean fauna was based on the presence of bison and of many mammalian species that inhabit the same area today. In addition to bison, larger land mammals identified as part of the Rancholabrean fauna include mammoths, mastodons, camels, horses, and ground sloths. The Irvingtonian fauna is more scarce, and is represented by Borophagus (bone-crushing dogs), hyenas, saber- toothed cats, rabbits, giant marmots, horses, mammoths, and mastodons (SMUD 2015).
Remains of land mammals have been found at several localities in alluvial deposits referable to the Riverbank Formation; there are six different localities in Sacramento, all referable to the Riverbank Formation. For example, the Teichert Gravel Pit, approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the project site along State Route 16, yielded specimens of broad- footed mole, Harlan’s ground sloth, rabbit, California ground squirrel, Botta’s pocket gopher, pocket mouse, groove-toothed harvest mouse, woodrat, vole, coyote, dire wolf, mammoth, horse, western camel, deer, antique bison, fish (carps and minnows), frog, snake, Pacific pond turtle, and the family Anatidae (ducks, geese, and swans) (SMUD 2015).
Page 3.3-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
There are at least nine recorded Rancholabrean-age vertebrate fossil sites from the Riverbank Formation in Sacramento County. Most recently, Pleistocene-age mammoth remains were discovered in 2004, during excavation of a SMUD trench in Elk Grove. Another locality in south Sacramento also contained fossilized Rancholabrean-age mammoth remains. The other sites in Sacramento contained remains of Rancholabrean- age bison, camel, coyote, horse, Harlan’s ground sloth, mammoth, woodrat, fish, mole, snake, and gopher. Pleistocene-age fossils were recovered from the Riverbank Formation at the Arco Arena site; those fossils included remains of Harlan’s ground sloth, bison, coyote, horse, camel, squirrel, antelope or deer, and mammoth (SMUD 2015).
Regional Prehistory
Although human occupation of the Central Valley may extend back 10,000 before present (B.P.), reliable evidence of such an early human presence is lacking and may be deeply buried. The prehistoric setting can be categorized into the following periods.
The Paleo-Indian Period: The Paleo-Indian Period (12,000 to 10,500 B.P.) saw the first demonstrated entry and spread of humans into California. Characteristic artifacts recovered from archaeological sites of this time period include fluted projectile points (constructed from chipped stones that have a long groove down the center called a “flute”) and large, roughly fashioned cobble and bifacially-flaked stone tools that were used in hunting the mastodon, bison, and mammoth that roamed the land during this time.
The Lower Archaic Period: The beginning of the Lower Archaic Period (10,500 to 7500 B.P.) coincides with that of the Middle Holocene climatic change which resulted in widespread floodplain deposition. This episode resulted in most of the early archaeological deposits being buried. Most tools were manufactured of local materials, and distinctive artifact types include large dart points and the milling slab and handstone.
The Middle Archaic Period: The Middle Archaic Period (7500 to 2500 B.P.) is characterized by warm, dry conditions which brought about the drying up of pluvial lakes. Economies were more diversified and may have included the introduction of acorn processing technology, although hunting remained an important source of food. Artifacts characteristic of this period include milling stones and pestles and a continued use of a variety of implements interpreted as large dart points.
The Upper Archaic Period: The Upper Archaic Period (2500 to 850 B.P.) corresponds with a sudden turn to a cooler, wetter, and more stable climate. The development of status distinctions based upon wealth is well documented in the archaeological record. The development of specialized tools, such as bone implements and stone plummets, as well as manufactured shell goods, were prolific during this time. The regional variance of economies was largely because of the seasonality of resources, which were harvested and processed in large quantities.
Page 3.3-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The Emergent Period: Several technological and social changes distinguish the Emergent Period (850 B.P. to Historic) from earlier cultural manifestations. The bow and arrow were introduced, ultimately replacing the dart and throwing spear, and territorial boundaries between groups became well established. In the latter portion of this Period (450 to 1800 B.P.), exchange relations became highly regularized and sophisticated. The clam disk bead developed as a monetary unit of exchange, and increasing quantities of goods moved greater distances. It was at the end of this Period that contact with Euroamericans became commonplace, eventually leading to intense pressures on Native American populations.
Ethnography
The study area is within the lands occupied by the Nisenan, or Southern Maidu. The language of the Nisenan, which includes several dialects, is classified in the Maiduan family of the Penutian linguistic stock. The western boundary of Nisenan territory was the western bank of the Sacramento River. The eastern boundary was “the line in the Sierra Nevada mountains where the snow lay on the ground all winter.” The northern boundary of Nisenan territory extends to the area between the Middle Fork of the Feather River and the North Fork of the Yuba River, and the southern boundary is marked by the Cosumnes River (ICF 2017).
Nisenan settlement locations depended primarily on elevation, exposure, and proximity to water and other resources. Permanent villages usually were established on low rises along major watercourses such as the American and Sacramento Rivers. Village size ranged from 3 houses to 40 or 50. Larger villages often had semisubterranean dance houses that were covered in earth and tule or brush, with a central smoke hole at the top and an east-facing entrance (ICF 2017).
The Nisenan occupied permanent settlements from which task-specific groups set out to harvest the seasonal bounty of flora and fauna that the rich valley environment provided. The Valley Nisenan economy included riparian resources, in contrast to the Hill Nisenan, whose resource base consisted primarily of acorns and wild game. The only domesticated plant was native tobacco (Nicotiana sp.), but many wild species were closely husbanded. The acorn crop from the blue oak (Quercus douglasii) and black oak (Q. kelloggii) was so carefully managed that its management served as the equivalent of agriculture. Acorns could be stored in anticipation of winter shortfalls in resource abundance. Deer, rabbit, and salmon were the chief sources of animal protein in the aboriginal diet, but many other insect and animal species were consumed when available (ICF 2017).
Religion played an important role in Nisenan life. The Nisenan believe that all-natural objects are endowed with supernatural powers. Two kinds of shamans existed: curing shamans and religious shamans. Curing shamans had limited contact with the spirit world and diagnosed and healed illnesses. Religious shamans gained control over the spirits through dreams and esoteric experiences. The usual mode of burial was cremation (ICF 2017).
Page 3.3-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The Gold Rush of 1849 had a devastating effect on the Valley Nisenan. The flood of miners to the area in search of gold brought diseases with them that decimated the Nisenan population. Those who survived were subjected to violence and prejudice at the hands of the miners, and the Nisenan eventually were pushed out of their ancestral territory. Although this contact with settlers had a profound negative impact on the Nisenan population through disease and violence, the Nisenan people survive and maintain strong communities and action-oriented organizations (ICF 2017).
Historic Setting
Two important themes represent the historical context within which resources potentially affected by this project are best understood: the development of Sacramento, particularly the light industrial area that was bifurcated by U.S. Highway 50 and serves as the home of SMUD headquarters; and the creation and expansion of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
Sacramento Development California was visited by most major European naval powers, but was claimed by the Spanish Empire ca. 1602. The first California mission was established in 1769, in San Diego. Over the next 50 years, the Spanish government, with the aid of various Roman Catholic orders, established 21 missions throughout Alta California. Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga and 13 soldiers traveled to the Sacramento Valley from Mission San Jose in 1808, but reported that the area would not be suitable for a mission site. However, a member of the expedition, enamored with the trees and the rivers, compared the region’s beauty to the Catholic Eucharist, or sagrado sacramento (ICF 2017).
Mexico’s independence from Spain in 1822 resulted in the secularization of the missions, in part to limit the influence of Roman Catholics loyal to Spain. Foreign fur trappers, primarily Canadian and American, gained a regional foothold. In 1826, Jedediah Smith camped near the present site of California State University, Sacramento, on assignment for the Hudson Bay Company. His success spurred an influx of trappers. They depleted the area of game until the early 1840s, when hunting and trapping were no longer profitable. The rapid influx of European and American trappers caused epidemics of malaria and smallpox that killed thousands of Nisenan and other indigenous people along the Sacramento River. Depopulation of the indigenous people from the project area through disease, relocation, and murder continued during Mexican secularization of Alta California (ICF 2017).
The vast northern territory of Alta California lacked the military capacity to protect Mexico’s lucrative interests in the trans-Pacific economy. The Mexican government continued the practice started by Imperial Spain of awarding large land grants to foreign citizens, nominally loyal to Mexico, as a bulwark against competitors in the frontier. John Sutter, born a citizen of Switzerland, was awarded such a land grant by President Juan Bautista Alvarado of Mexico in 1834. His party disembarked at the site of present-day Sutter’s Landing Park on 28th Street on August 12, 1839. Sutter had constructed an adobe fort, a settlement he called New Helvetia, by 1841 (now Sutter’s Fort State Park
Page 3.3-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
on L and 27th streets). He immediately disavowed his loyalty to the Mexicans at the initiation of the Mexican-American War in 1846 and raised the stars and stripes over New Helvetia (ICF 2017).
California was ceded as a territory to the United States following the end of the Mexican- American War in 1848. During that time, the steadily growing population of New Helvetia expanded into the surrounding countryside. The lumber mill built by one of Sutter’s employees, James Marshall, was originally planned to support Sutter’s conceptual city, Sutterville. The Coloma mill yielded gold instead. News of the gold could not be kept secret, and word reached San Francisco and the rest of the world (ICF 2017).
The fort of New Helvetia was gradually abandoned and Sutter’s creditors forced the Swiss émigré to transfer his holdings to his son, John. John, seeking to pay off his father’s debts, designated 4 square miles of the original Mexican land grant as the site for the new town, Sacramento. As the commercial center of Sacramento began to favor the riverfront, more and more canvas and semi-permanent structures opportunistically arose in that area of the new town. When California was admitted to the Union in 1850, the population of Sacramento was nearly 12,000 (ICF 2017).
In 1900, Sacramento had a population of 30,000, covering an area of about 4 square miles. The city streets averaged 80 feet wide and had electric lights. Water mains were established on an east-west orientation. By 1910 the population had increased to 45,000. New developments attracted middle-class and upper-class families away from the city core. The homes in the older parts of town were soon divided into rentals, demolished for new construction, or simply left to deteriorate (ICF 2017).
East Sacramento East Sacramento began to take shape with residential building that dates to the 1890s, but the neighborhood became firmly established when it was annexed by the city of Sacramento in 1911. With installation of electricity and an electric streetcar, development spread east from the downtown grid. Development was dependent on agricultural lots coming up for sale. Developers slowly built individual homes and small tracts on these lots as they were sold off, leading to a large variety in house types, from large upper- middle class family homes in the “Fabulous Forties” neighborhood to small bungalow courts and cottages meant for working class citizens (ICF 2017).
While residential development began to flourish in the 1920s, the far eastern portion of the newly annexed neighborhood that bordered unincorporated Sacramento County remained predominantly in agricultural use through the 1940s. With the development of more rail line (Southern and Union Pacific) and the opening of Sacramento State College in 1953, the area began to experience a shift from agricultural to light industrial use. Box plants, carton companies, and lumber yards sprouted up on the inexpensive land near the rail line, serving the Sacramento Valley’s vast agricultural shipping and canning industry. The California State Division of Highways then came to the neighborhood, opening a large office at 5900 Folsom Boulevard in 1957. Two years later, SMUD opened
Page 3.3-17 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
its distinct International-style Headquarters at 6301 S Street, a quarter-mile southeast of the Division of Highways (ICF 2017).
SMUD and the SMUD Headquarters Campus On July 2, 1923, SMUD was voted into creation by the people of Sacramento County. However, vicious and prolonged litigation between the utility and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) over the next 25 years delayed the delivery of power by SMUD to local customers. In 1946, PG&E’s appeal was finally denied, ending the long battle, and power delivery began on December 31, 1946. In the years directly following, SMUD focused on modernizing the outdated and neglected power grid and facilities it inherited from PG&E. Meanwhile, the population of Sacramento continued to grow, creating a continuous need for reliable power delivery as the population doubled between 1946 and 1956 (ICF 2017).
Thus, in the 1950s SMUD voted to build new headquarters to accommodate its burgeoning staff of over 400 men and women. SMUD acquired 15 acres below Folsom Boulevard, straddling a new residential neighborhood and the light industrial area that buffered the site from Sacramento State College. The local firm of Dreyfuss and Blackford was chosen to design the site, and a 160,000 square foot International style building with wooded landscaping was complete by 1959 (ICF 2017).
In the years following the completion of SMUD Headquarters, the utility continued to deliver power to an increasing number of customers in the expanding Sacramento area. SMUD began to utilize nuclear power at its Rancho Seco plant, which began construction in 1969 and began producing nuclear generated energy in 1974. However, the Arab oil embargo, a prolonged California drought and a multiple-month service shutdown at Rancho Seco challenged SMUD to provide reliable power from the plant. The company worked to secure power sources, and attempted early innovations in energy savings. It emerged from the crisis with a larger customer base than at the beginning of the crisis; Folsom voted to transfer their energy needs to SMUD in 1984 (ICF 2017).
Meanwhile, the Headquarters Campus began to take shape. The clearing of the right-of- way and construction of Highway 50 in the late 1960s and early 1970s permanently changed the land around headquarters. The new highway cut directly in front of the headquarters building, putting a barrier between SMUD and the residential neighborhood to the south. Due to the highway, SMUD was unable to expand past its southern boundary, and from the early 1980s the Headquarters Campus was extended east, west, and north to several adjacent parcels. While the historical record does not completely reflect the process of acquisition, several parcels surrounding the headquarters were procured and their buildings remodeled during this period. These buildings include the construction of the EMC in 1986, and the warehouse and site that would become the Field Reporting Facility (FRF) and East City Substation (likely in 1989). The Customer Service Center, fronting S Street with 65th Street to the east was complete by 1993. The Kramer Carton Company building was acquired in 2016. Today, the SMUD Headquarters Campus serves a variety of functions, including communications, corporate business, and community outreach (ICF 2017).
Page 3.3-18 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Records Searches, Surveys, and Consultation
Paleontology Records Search A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) database was conducted on December 21, 2017. Records of paleontological finds maintained by the UCMP (2017) state that there are 13 localities at which fossil remains have been found in Sacramento County. These occur in the Mariposa and Riverbank geologic formations, primarily of the Pleistocene epoch.
Historic and Archaeological Sites On January 26, 2017, a records search of the project site and a 0.25-mile radius was conducted at the North Central Information Center (NCIC), at California State University, Sacramento (SAC-17-14). The following information was reviewed as part of the records search:
• site records of previously recorded sites, • previous cultural studies, • NRHP and CRHR, • the California Historic Resources Inventory, and • the Office of Historic Preservation Historic Properties Directory.
Additional resources consulted outside the records search include:
• Sacramento East 1967 (Photorevised 1980), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5' Topographic Quadrangle Map;
• Fair Oaks 1902, USGS 15' Topographic Quadrangle Map; and
• University of California, Davis USDA-NCSS (National Cooperative Soil Survey) SoilWeb.
The records search revealed that ten studies have been conducted within the project site or within a 0.25-mile radius of the project site. The review of existing information identified one built environment resource, P-34-4272 (SMUD Headquarters building) within the project site, and 15 recorded built environment features within 0.25 mile of the project site. The NCIC records search revealed no archaeological resources within the project site or within 0.25 mile of the project site.
On May 15, 2017, an archaeologist conducted a field survey of the project site. All exposed, unpaved areas within the project site were surveyed for archaeological resources. Visibility was highly variable, ranging from 100 percent within areas completely denuded of vegetation to 0 percent within landscaped areas with thick grass cover. A significant portion of the project site is completely paved and was not surveyed for archaeological resources. No archaeological resources were encountered at the time of survey.
Page 3.3-19 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
In addition to the NCIC records search, several studies related to the Headquarters Campus were provided by SMUD. In 2016 the Kramer Carton Company building was evaluated. The study found that the building does not meet CRHR criteria and therefore was not a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA; the building was demolished September 2017. In 2017, the FRF and Auxiliary Building were evaluated; the study found that the buildings do not meet CRHR criteria and therefore are not historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
Headquarters Building The SMUD Headquarters Building is an exceptional example of the International/ Miesian style of architecture, and with its iconic aluminum louvers, exhibits significant innovations in energy-efficient design. It was listed in the NRHP in 2010 at a local level under Criterion C, as an exceptional example of an architectural style. The NRHP nomination states:
The SMUD Headquarters Building, constructed in 1959, is a product of the dissemination of the Modernist architectural philosophy and aesthetic in America, and specifically, in Sacramento, California, in the decades immediately following World War II. Strongly influenced by the work of Mies van der Rohe and the International sub-style of Modernism, it is an excellent example of its style and property type. It exemplifies not only the principles and design aesthetics of Modernism, it incorporates innovative design and high artistic values that have made it a landmark building within its local context. It is one of the most outstanding works of a locally and regionally significant Modernist architectural firm, Dreyfuss and Blackford, which designed a number of striking buildings in the local area beginning in the 1950s. The property meets the National Register Criterion C in the area of Architecture as one of the best examples of the Modernist International style in the City of Sacramento.
Headquarters Landscape A 2014 Cultural Landscape Report expanded the boundary of the Headquarters property to include the landscaped grounds surrounding the building, which were created to complement the Dreyfuss and Blackford design. The SMUD Headquarters property is a designed landscape that represents the work of mid-century modern designers in California. The designed landscape provides the setting for the SMUD Headquarters Building, which is a significant work of modern architecture.
For a property to be eligible for national, state, or local designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. Historic landscapes are composed of a number of character-defining features which, individually or collectively contribute to the landscape's physical appearance as they have evolved over time. In addition to vegetation and topography, cultural landscapes may include water features, such as ponds, streams, and fountains; circulation features, such as roads,
Page 3.3-20 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
paths, steps, and walls; buildings; and furnishings, including fences, benches, lights and sculptural objects.
The character-defining features of the SMUD Headquarters Landscape were identified in AECOM’s report (2014). These character-defining features contribute to the overall integrity of the cultural landscape to varying degrees.
Spatial Organization and Land Use • Entry/public face (south) • Interior transition areas (east and west) • Semi-private cafeteria terrace (center) • Sheltered parking (west) • Sheltered structured parking entrance (north)
Topography • Sculpted landforms • Building location within topography • Retained grade at the cafeteria terrace • Stepped cafeteria terrace • Retained grade at the structured parking entrance
Views and Vistas • View towards building façade from the street
Vegetation • Tree clusters • Screening trees around parking areas • Perimeter shrubs • Shrubs (in certain areas) • Parking area plantings (west) • Lawn
Circulation Systems • South entrance road/parking area • West parking area • North parking ramp • North loop road • Pedestrian paths (historic-era)
Buildings and Structures • Retaining walls (historic-era at the cafeteria terrace and the structured parking ramp)
Small-Scale Features • Fencing (perimeter) • Benches and tables (at front entrance)
Page 3.3-21 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Boulders (historic-era)
Tribal Cultural Resources On January 13, 2017, an email was sent to the NAHC to request a Sacred Lands File search for known cultural resources within the project site. The NAHC provided a negative response to this request on January 19, 2017. The NAHC also provided a list and contact information for 10 Native American contacts who may have interest in the project. On December 16, 2016 and in compliance with AB 52 requirements, SMUD sent letters to the lone Band of Miwok Indians, Nashville-El Dorado Miwok, Buena Vista Rancheria, United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria (UAIC), Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Wilton Rancheria, and Tsi Akim Maidu; responses were received from UAIC, Ione Band of Miwok, and Wilton Rancheria. The specific details of the consultations are confidential pursuant to California law, however, as summary of events related to communication between the tribes and SMUD is provided below:
• December 21, 2017: Wilton Rancheria replied to SMUD’s letter indicating a desire to consult.
• January 3, 2017: UAIC replied to SMUD’s letter indicating a desire to consult and requesting copies of cultural resource assessments and records searches.
• January 9, 2017: SMUD sent an email reminder to the three tribes regarding the December 16th letter.
• January 9, 2017: Ione Band of Miwok Indians replied to SMUD’s letter indicating a desire to consult.
• January 10, 2017: UAIC replied to SMUD’s email with potential site development considerations.
• August 17, 2017: SMUD sent a copy of the draft cultural resources report and a preliminary project description.
• November 30, 2017: SMUD sent an email to Wilton Rancheria and Ione Band of Miwok, extending the opportunity to host a meeting and requested dates of availability.
• December 19, 2017: SMUD spoke with tribal representatives from UAIC on the phone and resent documents from August 17th email.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance/Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would result in a potentially significant impact on cultural resources if it would:
Page 3.3-22 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5;
• cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5;
• disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries;
• directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or
• cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in PRC Section 21074.
Analysis Methodology
The impact analysis for archaeological and historical resources is based on the findings and recommendations of the Cultural Resources Survey Report for the SMUD Headquarters Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report prepared by ICF (ICF 2017); Headquarters Building and Site Rehabilitation Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SMUD 2015); and the Sacramento Municipal District Headquarters Building and Site Cultural Landscape Report (SMUD 2014).
The analysis is also informed by the provisions and requirements of federal, state, and local laws and regulations that apply to cultural resources.
Issues or Potential Impacts Not Discussed Further
Potential to Affect an Archaeological Resources The cultural resources survey prepared for the project site revealed no previously recorded archaeological sites within the project site or within a quarter-mile buffer area (ICF 2017). All exposed, unpaved areas within the project site were surveyed for archaeological resources. No archaeological resources were encountered at the time of survey. Given the distance of the HQCMP project area to nearby water bodies (e.g., streams, rivers, lakes, etc.), low sensitivity of underlying soils, and lack of previously recorded prehistoric resources within 0.25 mile of the HQCMP project area, ground disturbing activities within the project area are unlikely to impact any archaeological resources, historic or prehistoric. Therefore, this issue is not analyzed further.
Page 3.3-23 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.3-1: Change in the significance of a historic resource (structures).
One building on the project site has been identified as a historical resource. The Headquarters Building is currently undergoing modernization and the proposed project does not include any renovations or modifications to the building. There would be a less- than-significant impact on the historic resource.
One building on the project site has been identified as a historical resource. The FRF has been evaluated and does not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR, and is therefore not a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. There are no other historical-age buildings on the project site. The SMUD Headquarters Building was listed in the NRHP in 2010 at a local level under Criterion C, as an exceptional example of the International/Miesian style of architecture.
The SMUD Headquarters Building and Site Rehabilitation Project, which is currently ongoing, includes the in-kind replacement of severely deteriorated significant features, removal of hazardous materials such as asbestos and lead paint, and necessary modernization of infrastructure for the historic building to perform its functions efficiently by 2015 technological standards for the next 50 years. Proposed changes to the historic building are being performed according to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The rehabilitation plans were prepared by an architect and site design team experienced in historic preservation work. For these reasons, the SMUD Headquarters Building and Site Rehabilitation Project was determined to have a less-than-significant impact under CEQA.
Because of the infrastructure and technological modernizations currently underway for the Headquarters Building, the proposed project does not include any renovations or modifications to the building. The Headquarters Building is located within the Headquarters District. This district is intended to maintain and respect the Headquarters Building and its associated landscaping for its historical significance while providing essential office space for SMUD employees. Because the project would not cause the physical destruction or alternation, of the building, there would be a less-than-significant impact on the historic building.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact 3.3-2: Change the significance of a historic resource (historic landscape).
The SMUD Headquarters Landscape is listed in the NRHP. The incorporation of bicycle and pedestrian elements anticipated in the HQCMP for the Headquarters District could alter or destroy character-defining elements of the landscape. This would be a potentially significant impact.
Page 3.3-24 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The landscaping surrounding the Headquarters Building is listed in the NRHP as a Historic Designed Landscape—a landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a landscape architect, master gardener, architect, or horticulturist according to design principles, or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. SMUD recognizes three zones that contain varying degrees of historic significance within and surrounding the Headquarters Building and landscape:
• Historic Core encompasses the Headquarters Building and immediately surrounding areas including the existing parking and landscaping to the west, and is designated as being of most historical significance.
• Northern Perimeter includes parking to the north of the Headquarters Building and is considered a zone of moderate significance.
• Eastern Parking Area incorporates parking and landscaping to the east of the Headquarters Building and is considered a zone of little to no historic significance due to modification from its original layout.
As discussed under “Character Defining Features” in Subsection 3.3.2 above, for a property to be eligible for national, state or local designation under one of the significance criteria, the essential physical features (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its historic identity must be evident. Character-defining features of the Headquarters Landscape include:
• Spatial Organization and Land Use (public entry, transition areas, cafeteria terrace) • Topography (sculpted landforms, retained grades, stepped cafeteria terrace) • Views and Vistas (view towards building façade from the street) • Vegetation (screening trees, perimeter shrubs, west parking area plantings) • Circulation Systems (parking areas, north parking ramp, loop road, pedestrian paths) • Buildings and Structures (various retaining walls) • Small-Scale Features (boulders, perimeter fencing, entrance benches and tables)
The proposed project would include modifications to the Headquarters District, of which the Headquarters Landscape is a part. These modifications consist of improved pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, and enriching the pedestrian environment with new landscaped open space and improved outdoor amenities, including seating, shade trees, and outdoor collaboration spaces. Although plans depicting exact locations have not been completed, some of these modifications are anticipated to be in the historic core and the northern perimeter, areas which have been designated as being of most historical significance and moderate significance, respectively. The incorporation of bicycle and pedestrian elements anticipated in the HQCMP for the Headquarters District could alter or destroy character-defining elements of the Headquarters Landscape. This would be a potentially significant impact.
Page 3.3-25 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Mitigation Measure 3.3-2: Prepare landscape rehabilitation plan. Prior to completion of final site design for enhancements (e.g., benches, walkways, etc.) to existing landscaped areas to the west and east of the Headquarters Building, SMUD shall complete a plan for the treatment of the historic Headquarters Landscape. The plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect who complies with the Secretary’s Standards. Because of the need to alter or add to this historic property to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the property’s historic character, the plan will be a rehabilitation plan as defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Per the Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes, a successful Landscape Rehabilitation Plan will see that the character-defining features and materials of a historic landscape are protected and maintained, but also allows for an opportunity to make possible an efficient contemporary use through alterations and additions. The plan shall illustrate how to apply the rehabilitation treatments in a way that meets the Secretary’s Standards.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 would reduce impacts associated with the implementation of the HQCMP and potential modification of the historic Headquarters Landscape to a less-than-significant level because it requires the performance of professionally accepted and legally compliant procedures. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to the Phase 1 elements of the HQCMP would not be required for impacts to be less than significant.
Impact 3.3-3: Impacts to previously unidentified human remains.
Based on documentary research, no evidence suggests that any prehistoric or historic-era marked or un-marked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, ground-disturbing construction activities could uncover previously unknown human remains. This would be a potentially significant impact.
Based on documentary research, no evidence suggests that any prehistoric or historic- era marked or un-marked human interments are present within or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, the location of grave sites and Native American remains can occur outside of identified cemeteries or burial sites. Therefore, there is a possibility that unmarked, previously unknown Native American or other graves could be present within the project site and could be uncovered by project-related construction activities.
Although there are no known prehistoric or early historic interments on the project site, project-related construction activities could uncover or otherwise disturb previously undiscovered or unrecorded human remains. Because any disturbance of human remains would be a significant impact, this impact would be potentially significant.
Page 3.3-26 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Mitigation Measure 3.3-3: Halt ground-disturbing activity upon discovery of human remains. If human remains are discovered during any demolition/construction activities, potentially damaging ground-disturbing activities within 100 feet of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the project applicant shall notify the Sacramento County coroner and the NAHC immediately, according to Section 5097.98 of the PRC and Section 7050.5 of California’s Health and Safety Code. If the remains are determined by the NAHC to be Native American, the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. The project applicant shall also retain a professional archaeologist with Native American burial experience to conduct a field investigation of the specific site and consult with the Most Likely Descendant, if any, identified by the NAHC. Following the coroner’s and NAHC’s findings, the archaeologist, and the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in PRC Section 5097.94.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-3 would reduce impacts associated with human remains to a less-than-significant level because it would require the performance of professionally accepted and legally compliant procedures for the discovery of human remains. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to the Phase 1 elements of the HQCMP would be required for impacts to be less than significant.
Impact 3.3-4: Impacts to paleontological resources.
No paleontological resources are known to occur within the project site; however, similar Pleistocene sediments throughout the Sacramento Valley have produced significant paleontological resources. Earth-disturbing activities could potentially damage previously unknown paleontological resources. This would be a potentially significant impact.
The project site is located within the Riverbank Formation. This formation is Pleistocene in age; estimates place the age between 130,000 and 450,000 B.P. In the project vicinity, the Riverbank Formation forms higher alluvial fans and terraces of major rivers and can be divided into upper and lower members. Sediments in the Riverbank Formation consist of weathered reddish gravel, sand, and silt that form alluvial terraces and fans. Pleistocene-age alluvial deposits are sedimentary in nature; sedimentary alluvial deposits frequently contain fossils.
A search of the UCMP database was completed in December 2017 and identified 13 localities at which fossil remains have been found in Sacramento County. These occur in the Mariposa and Riverbank geologic formations, primarily of the Pleistocene epoch.
Page 3.3-27 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Project-related earthmoving activities would occur in the Pleistocene-age Riverbank Formation. Because numerous vertebrate fossils have been recovered from the Riverbank Formation in northern and central California, including localities that are close to the project site, this formation is considered to be paleontologically sensitive. As a result, earthmoving activities in the Riverbank Formation, including development under the HQCMP, could result in accidental damage to or destruction of unique paleontological resources. This impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.3-4: Avoid destruction of paleontological resources. 1. The project applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist to conduct an on-site training that will alert all construction personnel and operational staff involved in equipment training about the possibility of encountering fossils. The appearance and types of fossils likely to be seen during construction will be described. Construction personnel shall be trained about the proper notification procedures should fossils be encountered.
2. If paleontological resources are discovered during earthmoving activities, including on- site training activities, the project applicant shall immediately halt operations within 100 feet of the find and notify the applicant. The applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist for identification and salvage of fossils so that construction delays can be minimized. If large specimens are discovered, the paleontologist shall have the authority to halt or divert grading and construction equipment while the finds are removed. The paleontologist shall be responsible for implementing all tasks summarized below:
• In the event of discovery, salvage of unearthed fossil remains, typically involving simple excavation of the exposed specimen but possibly also plaster-jacketing of large and/or fragile specimens, or more elaborate quarry excavations of richly fossiliferous deposits.
• Recovery of stratigraphic and geologic data to provide a context for the recovered fossil remains, typically including description of lithologies of fossil-bearing strata, measurement and description of the overall stratigraphic section, and photographic documentation of the geologic setting.
• Laboratory preparation (cleaning and repair) of collected fossil remains to a point of curation, generally involving removal of enclosing rock material, stabilization of fragile specimens (using glues and other hardeners), and repair of broken specimens.
• Cataloging and identification of prepared fossil remains, typically involving scientific identification of specimens, inventory of specimens, assignment of catalog numbers, and entry of data into an inventory database.
• Preparation of a final report summarizing the field and laboratory methods used, the stratigraphic units inspected, the types of fossils recovered, and the significance of the curated collection.
Page 3.3-28 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-4 would reduce impacts associated with paleontological resources to a less-than-significant level because construction workers and operational personnel would be alerted to the possibility of encountering paleontological resources and professionally accepted and legally compliant procedures for the discovery of paleontological resources would be implemented in the event of a find. Implementation of this mitigation measure would be required during development of Phase 1 elements of the HQCMP.
Impact 3.3-5: Impacts to tribal cultural resources.
Consultation with UAIC, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, and Wilton Rancheria has resulted in no resources identified as TCRs as described under AB 52. Because no resources meet the criteria for a TCR under PRC Section 21074, there would be no impact to tribal cultural resources.
As part of the 2013/2014 legislative session, AB 52 established a new class of resources under CEQA, TCRs, and requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review must, upon written request of a California Native American Tribe, begin consultation once the lead agency determines that the application for the project is complete. As detailed above, SMUD sent letters to seven Native American Tribes on December 16, 2016. SMUD received three responses, from Melodi McAdams, Cultural Resources Associate for the UAIC; Randy Yonemura, Cultural Committee Chair for the Ione Band of Miwok Indians; and Antonio Ruiz, Jr., Cultural Resources Officer for the Wilton Rancheria.
As described above, SMUD attempted to consult with the designated UAIC, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, and Wilton Rancheria contacts in 2017. While several letters, phone calls, and emails were exchanged regarding setting up a meeting to discuss the project, none occurred and SMUD now considers this consultation to be concluded. This attempt at consultation resulted in the conclusion that there are no resources on the project site considered to be TCRs as described under AB 52 and defined in PRC Section 21074. To be considered a TCR, a resource must be either:
1. listed or determined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historic resources, or
2. a resource that the lead agency determines, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to treat as a tribal cultural resource pursuant to the criteria in PRC Section 50241(c). PRC Section 5024.1(c) provides that a resource is meets criteria for listing as an historic resource in the CRHR if in meets any of the following:
(1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
(2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
Page 3.3-29 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
(3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
(4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The project area is in Nisenan territory; however, it is not known to have any special use. In addition to having no resources on the project site that the tribes consider to be a TCR, no archaeological remains have been identified on the project site. Also, the NAHC Sacred Lands database search was negative. For these reasons, no part of the project site meets any of the PRC 5024.1(c) criteria listed above. No part of the project site meets any of the PRC 5024.1(c) criteria, and the project would have no impact to TRCs as defined in PRC Section 21074.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Page 3.3-30 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.4 Biological Resources
This section describes the biological resources known or with potential to occur on the Headquarters Campus. The analysis includes a description of the existing environmental conditions, the methods used for assessment, the potential impacts associated with implementing the project, and mitigation measures proposed to reduce significant and potentially significant impacts. This section also includes a brief overview of the federal, State, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the protection of biological resources in the City of Sacramento (City).
The biological resources information presented in this section is based on review of available background reports and biological resource databases, as well as a reconnaissance-level survey of the project site and surrounding area conducted on December 20, 2016. Information sources reviewed include:
• Biological Resources Technical Report for the Headquarters Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report (Ascent 2017).
• The California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records search of the East Sacramento USGS 7.5- minute quadrangle (CNDDB 2017).
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) Trust Resources Report. List of proposed, candidate, threatened and endangered plant and wildlife species, critical habitat and other natural resources that occur or have the potential to occur within the project site (USFWS 2017).
• California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02) (CNPS 2017).
3.4.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal Endangered Species Act The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, and subsequent amendments, provide regulations for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which they depend. USFWS (with jurisdiction over plants, wildlife, and resident fish) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, with jurisdiction over anadromous fish and marine fish and mammals) oversee the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 7 of the ESA mandates all federal agencies to consult with USFWS and NMFS if they determine that a proposed project may affect a listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Under Section 7, the federal lead agency must obtain incidental take authorization or a letter of concurrence stating
Page 3.4-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species. Section 7 requirements do not apply to nonfederal actions. For projects that do not involve a federal action, ESA compliance is obtained through Section 10 for projects that will adversely affect (result in take) of a federally listed species. Section 10 compliance requires preparation of a habitat conservation plan by the project proponent and results in the issuance of an Incidental Take Permit from USFWS and/or NMFS. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of any fish or wildlife species listed as endangered, including the destruction of habitat that prevents the species’ recovery. Take is defined as any action or attempt to hunt, harm, harass, pursue, shoot, wound, capture, kill, trap, or collect a species. Section 9 prohibitions also apply to threatened species unless a special rule has been defined with regard to take at the time of listing. Under Section 9 of the ESA, the take prohibition applies only to wildlife and fish species. However, Section 9 does prohibit the unlawful removal and possession, or malicious damage or destruction, of any endangered plant from federal land. Section 9 prohibits acts to remove, cut, dig up, damage, or destroy an endangered plant species in nonfederal areas in knowing violation of any state law or in the course of criminal trespass. Candidate species and species that are proposed for or under petition for listing receive no protection under Section 9.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. Section 703, et seq.), first enacted in 1918, provides for protection of international migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The MBTA provides that it shall be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. This prohibition includes both direct and indirect acts, although harassment and habitat modification are not included unless they result in direct loss of birds, nests, or eggs. The current list of species protected by the MBTA can be found in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 10.13. The list includes nearly all birds native to the United States. Migratory birds are known to nest within the project site.
State
California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq.) establishes state policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. CESA mandates that state agencies should not approve projects that jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. One species that is state listed (Swainson’s hawk) has potential to occur on the project site and may be affected by the project. If take cannot be avoided, a Section 2081 permit would be required for the project.
Page 3.4-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
California Fish and Game Code
Protection of Birds and Raptors (Sections 3503 and 3503.5) Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits killing of birds and destruction of bird nests. Section 3503.5 prohibits killing of raptor species and destruction of raptor nests. Typical violations include destruction of active bird and raptor nests as a result of tree removal, and failure of nesting attempts (loss of eggs or young) as a result of disturbance of nesting pairs caused by nearby human activity. Birds protected under California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 are known to nest on the project site and could be affected by the project.
Fully Protected Species (Sections 3511, 3513, 4700, and 5050) California Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 3513, 4700, and 5050 pertain to fully protected wildlife species (birds in Sections 3511 and 3513, mammals in Section 4700, and reptiles and amphibians in Section 5050) and strictly prohibit take of these species. CDFW cannot issue a take permit for fully protected species, except under narrow conditions for scientific research or the protection of livestock, or the adoption of a Natural Community Conservation Plan. Specifically, Section 3513 prohibits any take or possession of birds designated by the MBTA as migratory nongame birds except as allowed by federal rules and regulations pursuant to the MBTA.
One fully protected bird species, white-tailed kite, has the potential to nest on the project site and be affected by the project.
Local
City of Sacramento General Plan The following goal and policy from the Environmental Resources Element of the Sacramento 2035 General Plan (City of Sacramento 2015) are applicable to the proposed project.
Goal ER 3.1 Urban Forest. Manage the city's urban forest as an environmental, economic, and aesthetic resource to improve Sacramento residents' quality of life.
• Policy ER 3.1.3 Trees of Significance. The City shall require the retention of trees of significance (such as heritage trees) by promoting stewardship of such trees and ensuring that the design of development projects provides for the retention of these trees wherever possible. Where removal cannot be avoided, the City shall require tree replacement or suitable mitigation.
City of Sacramento Tree Preservation Ordinance The City of Sacramento requires a permit for the removal of City Street Trees or trees designated as Private Protected Trees, based on Chapter 12.56 of the Sacramento City Code (City of Sacramento 2016). Definitions of these tree types are provided below.
Page 3.4-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
City Tree City trees are characterized as trees partially or completely located in a City park, on City owned property, or on a public right-of-way, including any street, road, sidewalk, park strip, mow strip or alley.
Private Protected Tree Private protected trees are defined any tree designated to have special historical value, special environmental value, or significant community benefit, and is located on private property. This definition includes trees formerly referred to as “Heritage Trees”. Private protected trees are:
• All native trees at 12-inch diameter at standard height (DSH, 4.5 feet above natural grade). Native trees include: coast, interior, valley and blue oaks, California sycamore and buckeye.
• All trees at 32 inch DSH within an existing single family or duplex dwelling.
• All trees at 24 inch DSH on undeveloped land or any other type of property such as commercial, industrial, and apartments.
3.4.2 Environmental Setting
The project site is entirely developed within the urban area of the City of Sacramento and it is surrounded by other developed areas. The site is zoned for light industrial and heavy commercial, with two small areas zoned for single-unit dwelling (City of Sacramento 2014). The elevation of the project site is 30 feet above sea level and the site is relatively flat, except for low rolling constructed landscaping. Besides bio swales for rain water draining, no streams, wetlands, or other water bodies are present at the site.
Land Cover
Developed areas within the City typically support little to no native vegetation cover. The project site supports lawn, ornamental shrubs, and trees. Species observed in the project site, during the site visit on December 20, 2016, include coastal redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), cork oak (Quercus suber), willow (Salix spp.), Chinese pistache (Pistachia chinensis), olive (Olea europea), gum tree (Eucalyptus viminalis), silver dollar eucalyptus (Eucalyptus polyanthemos), strawberry tree (Arbutus onedo), crape myrtle (Lagerstoemia indica), silk tree (Albizia julibrissin), maidenhair tree (Ginkgo biloba), black oak (Quercus velutina), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), privet (Ligustrum lucidum), pine (Pinus spp.), honeylocust (Gleditsia triacanthos var. inermis), and incense cedar (Caolocedrus decurrens). Shrubs and other plants observed include tea tree (Leptospermum spp.), oleander (Nerium oleander), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), ivy (Hedera spp.), rosemary (Rosmarinus spp.), rose (Rosa spp.), holy (Ilex spp.), deer grass (Muhlenbergia rigens.), swordfern (Polystichum munitum), bird of paradise (Strelitzia spp.), dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), bedstraw (Gallium spp.), sedge (Carex spp.),
Page 3.4-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and periwinkle (Vinca minor). Some of these ornamental trees support old/inactive bird nests.
The existing buildings were thoroughly examined for the potential to provide suitable habitat for wildlife. Attention was given to the potential for bat roosting habitat. During the site visit, the existing Headquarters Building parking structure was identified as providing potential roosting habitat; however, the gaps between concrete pads at the Headquarters Building parking structure were not deep enough to provide roosting habitat.
Wildlife
Urban areas support common birds and mammals that have adapted to this habitat type. Wildlife species that are expected to occur in the project site include California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Brewer's blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttalli), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), house mouse (Mus musculus), black rat (Ratus ratus), and house cat (Felis silvestris catus).
House sparrow (Passer domesticus), California gull (Larus californicus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), eastern fox squirrel (Sciurus niger), rock pigeon (Columba livia), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), American robin (Turdus migratorius), and Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra) were some of the species observed during the field survey.
Special-Status Species
Special-status species include plants and animals in the following categories:
• listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA or are candidates for possible future listing;
• listed or are candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA;
• listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act;
• listed as Fully Protected under the California Fish and Game Code;
• identified by CDFW as species of special concern;
• plants considered by CDFW to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” and assigned a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR). Species on these lists may meet the CEQA definition of rare or endangered. They are summarized as follows:
o CRPR 1A - Plants presumed to be extinct in California;
Page 3.4-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
o CRPR 1B - Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere;
o CRPR 2A - Plants that are presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere;
o CRPR 2B - Plants that are rare threatened, or endangered in California, more common elsewhere;
• considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA Section15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G); or
• otherwise meets the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA Section15380(b) and (d).
A list of special-status plant and wildlife species was compiled from the queries conducted during the pre-field investigation and is presented in Table 3.4-1. A graphical representation of historic special-status species occurrences in the project area is provided in Exhibit 4 of the Biological Technical Report (refer to Appendix B, Attachment A). This table describes the common and scientific names of each of the species identified, along with their legal status, habitat requirements and a brief assessment of the likelihood that the species would occur on the project site.
Queries of the CNDDB returned fifteen special-status wildlife species that are known to occur on the East Sacramento U.S. Geological Service (USGS) topographic quadrangle. The majority of these species nest, forage, or are otherwise associated with habitat that does not occur on the project site, such as riverine, vernal pool, wetland, or riparian habitat. There is only one plant species, Sanford’s arrowhead (Sagittaria sanfordii), that is known to occur in the East Sacramento USGS topographic quadrangle, as recorded in the CNDDB and the CNPS Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2017). Sandford’s arrowhead is typically found in marshes and swamps (assorted shallow freshwater), also in canals, and ditches with reliable water sources, which do not occur on the project site.
The USFWS online IPaC resource list includes seven federally threatened and one endangered species. These species require specific habitats (i.e., riverine aquatic, vernal pool or wetland habitat, or elderberry shrubs) that are not on the project site and thus these species are not expected to occur.
Page 3.4-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.4-1 Special-Status Species in Vicinity of the Headquarters Campus Status1 Potential for Species Habitat Federal State CRPR Occurrence2 PLANTS Sagittaria sanfordii -- -- 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (assorted None, the drainage bio Sanford’s shallow freshwater), also in canals, swales do not retain arrowhead and ditches with reliable water water and thus there is sources between 0 and 650 m. no suitable habitat for this Blooms May to November species in the project site. ANIMALS Branchinecta T - - Inhabits primarily vernal pools, but None, no suitable habitat lynchi also occurs in other seasonal for this species in the Vernal pool fairy wetlands such as alkaline rain pools, project site. shrimp ephemeral drainages, rock outcrop pools, ditches, stream oxbows, stock ponds, and vernal swales. Lepidurus packardi E - - Occurs in a variety of seasonal None, no suitable habitat Vernal pool tadpole habitats: vernal pools, ponded clay for this species in the shrimp flats, alkaline pools, ephemeral stock project site. tanks, and roadside ditches. Desmocerus T - - Elderberry shrubs below 3,000 feet in None, no elderberry californicus elevation, typically in riparian shrubs in the project site. occidentalis habitats. Found in stems measuring Valley elderberry 1 inch or greater at ground level. longhorn beetle Ambystoma T T - Typically found in natural ephemeral None, no suitable habitat californiense pools or ponds that mimic them for this species in the California tiger (stock ponds that are allowed to go project site. salamander dry) Upland habitat consists of grassland, and oak savanna. Estivate in rodent burrows or cracks during dry periods. Rana draytonii T SC - Permanent and semi-permanent None, no suitable habitat California red- aquatic habitats, such as creeks and for this species in the legged frog coldwater ponds, with emergent and project site. submergent vegetation and riparian species along the edges; may estivate in rodent burrows or cracks during dry periods Thamnophis gigas T T - The giant garter snake inhabits None, no suitable habitat Giant garter snake agricultural wetlands and other for this species in the waterways such as irrigation and project site. drainage canals, sloughs, ponds, small lakes, low gradient streams, and adjacent uplands in the Central Valley. Hypomesus T E - Occurs in the Delta in areas that do None, no suitable habitat transpacificus not surpass 1-12 parts per thousand for this species in the Delta smelt salinity (about one-third seawater). project site.
Page 3.4-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.4-1 Special-Status Species in Vicinity of the Headquarters Campus Status1 Potential for Species Habitat Federal State CRPR Occurrence2 Onchorhynchus T - - Non-spawning habitat: mainly None, no suitable habitat mykiss irideus oceanic. Most spawning occurs in for this species in the Steelhead – gravel riffles in main streams where project site. Central Valley DPS the female forms a nest, in the gravel. Streams with temperatures near the upper tolerance level (77°F) during spawning migrations may be able to provide habitat for if a patchwork of thermal refugia is present. Athene cunicularia SC - Typically found on open, dry annual None, no suitable habitat Burrowing owl or perennial grasslands, deserts and for this species in the scrublands characterized by low project site. growing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most notably the California ground squirrel. Buteo swainsoni T - Occurs in Great Basin grassland, Moderate, although Swainson’s hawk riparian forest, valley and foothill mature trees could grassland; breeds in grasslands with provide suitable nesting scattered trees and riparian forest habitat, suitable foraging near large river systems; requires habitat is not nearby adjacent suitable foraging areas, which likely precludes the such as grasslands, or alfalfa or grain presence of this species. fields supporting rodent populations. Coccyzus T E - Occurs in riparian forests along None, CNDDB americanus broad, lower flood-bottoms of larger occurrence dates to occidentalis river systems. Nests in riparian 1870. Suitable nesting Western yellow- jungles of willow, often mixed with and foraging habitat is billed cuckoo cottonwoods, and within lower story not present in the project of blackberry, nettles, or wild grape. site. Elanus leucurus - FP - Commonly found in savanna, open Moderate, mature trees White-tailed kite woodlands, marshes, desert could provide suitable grassland, partially cleared lands, nesting habitat for this and cultivated fields. White-tailed species, however, lack of kites hunt over lightly grazed or foraging habitat likely ungrazed fields where there may be precludes the presence larger prey populations than in more of this species. heavily grazed areas.
Page 3.4-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.4-1 Special-Status Species in Vicinity of the Headquarters Campus Status1 Potential for Species Habitat Federal State CRPR Occurrence2 Melospiza melodia - SC - This population has an affinity for None, no suitable habitat Song sparrow emergent freshwater marshes for this species in the (“Modesto” dominated by tules and cattails as project site. population) well as riparian willow thickets. They are also known to nest in riparian forest of valley oak with sufficient understory of blackberry, along vegetated irrigation canals and levees, and in recent planted valley oak restoration sites. Progne subis - SC - Colonial nester, they feed in open None, although these Purple martin areas, especially over water. Known birds nest in the area to nest within overpass weep holes. (Redding Avenue overpass), they forage over open areas and over water. The project site does not contain suitable foraging or breeding habitat for purple martin and they are not expected to occur on the site. Riparia - T - Forages in a variety of habitats. None, suitable nesting Bank swallow Requires vertical banks/cliffs with and foraging habitat is fine-textured/sandy soils near not present in the project streams, rivers, lakes, ocean to dig site. nesting hole. Taxidea taxus - SC - Suitable habitat is characterized by None, no suitable habitat American badger herbaceous, shrub, and open stages is present within the of most habitats with dry, friable soils. project site. CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank. Projects evaluated CESA = California Endangered Species Act under CEQA typically consider impacts to ESA = federal Endangered Species Act species on List 1B, 2 and 3. See Key Regulatory NPPA = California Native Plant Protection Act Issues Section under Sensitive Biological CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act Resources. 1. Status definitions: Federal: CRPR: E Endangered (legally protected under ESA) 1B Plant species considered rare or endangered in T Threatened (legally protected under ESA) California and elsewhere (protected under CEQA, but State: not legally protected under ESA or CESA) E Endangered (legally protected under CESA) CRPR Extensions: T Threatened (legally protected under CESA) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80% of FP Fully Protected (legally protected under California occurrences are threatened) Fish and Game Code) SC Species of Concern (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under CESA)
Page 3.4-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.4-1 Special-Status Species in Vicinity of the Headquarters Campus Status1 Potential for Species Habitat Federal State CRPR Occurrence2 2. Potential for Occurrence Definitions None: Species is unlikely to be present in the project site due to poor habitat quality, lack of suitable habitat features, or restricted current distribution of the species. Low potential to occur: Species has a low potential to occur due to marginally suitable habitat present in the project site; however, there are little to no other indicators that the species might be present. Moderate: Suitable habitat is available in the project site and the nearest known CNDDB occurrence is within five miles of the project site. Present: The species, or evidence of its presence, was observed in the project site during reconnaissance surveys, or was reported by others. Source: CNDDB 2017; CNPS 2017; USFWS 2017
There is no critical habitat for special-status wildlife species on or near the project site (USFWS 2017). The National Wetlands Inventory does not contain records of wetlands in the project site (USFWS 2017).
Sensitive Habitats Sensitive natural communities are those natural communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of land use changes or projects. These community types are designated by CDFW (CDFW 2018). The project site does not support sensitive natural communities.
3.4.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance/Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would result in a potentially significant impact related to biological resources if it would:
• have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
• have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
• have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected waters of the United States, including wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the CWA through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
Page 3.4-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
• conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
• conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Analysis Methodology
Potential impacts on biological resources resulting from implementation of the HQCMP were determined by evaluating the project in relation to the habitat characteristics of the project site and immediate surrounding area, quantifying potential loss of common and sensitive habitats, and evaluating potential effects to common and special-status species that could result indirectly from this habitat loss or directly from construction activities. As noted above, reconnaissance level surveys were conducted in 2016 to determine habitat conditions and potential presence of sensitive biological resources. The survey conducted also included an assessment of potential sensitive habitat in and around the project site that could be affected by project implementation.
Issues or Potential Impacts Not Discussed Further
Impacts on Special-status Plants The project site does not support suitable habitat for special-status plant species; therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on special-status plants and this issue will not be analyzed further.
Impacts on Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Community As noted above, the project site does not contain sensitive natural communities (e.g., elderberry savanna, riparian habitat). Therefore, no impact to listed sensitive natural communities would occur and this issue will not be analyzed further.
Impacts to Wetlands or Other Waters Wetlands or “other waters” include lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mud flats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or the CDFW pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. No wetlands or other waters of United States or under the jurisdiction of CDFW occur on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on federal or state-jurisdictional wetlands and other waters and this issue will not be analyzed further.
Page 3.4-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Interfere with Wildlife Movement or Migration or Impede the Use of Nursery Sites The project site is in an urban area surrounded by commercial, industrial, and residential uses. The project site and vicinity do not provide a migratory wildlife corridor or nursery sites. There would be no impact to movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. This issue will not be analyzed further.
Conflicts with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan The project site is not within an area designated under a habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact on adopted habitat conservation plans and this issue will not be analyzed further.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.4-1: Disturbance of nesting Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, or other avian species.
Project implementation would result in construction disturbances that could cause Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, or other avian species to abandon their nests, if located nearby. Therefore, project construction could cause direct mortality of chicks and eggs. This impact would be potentially significant.
Two special-status birds are known to occur or have been recorded within three miles of the project site (see Table 3.4-1): Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite. There are four known CNDDB records of nesting Swainson’s hawks within three miles of the project site. Three of these occurrences are within the American River Parkway riparian area and one of the occurrences is within the urban area of midtown Sacramento. The nearest CNDDB record for white-tailed kite is approximately 1.7 miles to the north, along the American River Parkway. This species is known to nest in riparian areas but also in proximity to foraging habitat, and sometimes in urban environment if suitable food sources are nearby. Mature trees in the project site and adjacent area provide potential nesting sites for special-status raptors, such as Swainson’s hawk and white-tailed kite, and common raptors and birds, which are protected under sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code and the MBTA. Implementation of the HQCMP, particularly construction activities proximate to on-site trees, could result in impacts to special-status species if active nests are located in or near on-site construction. Construction activities, and the associated elevated noise and increased human presence, could cause Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, or other avian species to abandon their nests, if located nearby. Nest abandonment would result in direct mortality of chicks and eggs. This impact would be considered potentially significant.
Page 3.4-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Mitigation Measure 3.4-1: Avoid disturbance of active nests. Bird nesting season typically is from February 1 through August 31. Construction activities (including vegetation clearing) conducted outside of the nesting bird season would not disturb nesting birds. Therefore, SMUD, if possible, will schedule construction activities that could occur proximate to nesting bird habitat outside of the nesting season. If construction will occur during the nesting season, a SMUD project biologist/biological monitor will conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys to determine if birds are nesting in the work area. The pre-construction nesting bird surveys will identify on-site bird species and any nest-building behavior.
• If no nesting birds are found in or within 500 feet of the project site during the pre- construction clearance surveys, construction activities may proceed as scheduled.
• If pre-nesting behavior is observed, but an active nest has not yet been established (e.g., courtship displays, but no eggs in a constructed nest), a nesting bird deterrence and removal program will be implemented. Such deterrence methods could include removal of previous year’s nesting materials and removal of partially completed nests in progress. Once a nest is situated and identified with eggs or young, it is considered to be “active” and the nest cannot be removed until the young have fledged.
• Because bird species may breed multiple times in a season, monitoring for nesting birds will continue during the nesting season to address new arrivals. A qualified biologist will conduct weekly nesting bird surveys in the construction area during the nesting season and deter establishment of nests by removing partial completed nests.
• If an active nest is found in or within 500 feet of the project site during construction, a “No Construction” buffer zone will be established around the active nest (usually a minimum radius of 50 feet for passerine birds and 500 feet for raptors) to minimize the potential for disturbance of the nesting activity. The project biologist/biological monitor will determine and flag the appropriate buffer size required, based on the species, specific situation, tolerances of the species, and the nest location. Project activities will resume in the buffer area when the project biologist/biological monitor has determined that the nest(s) is (are) no longer active.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 would avoid disturbance of active nests, consistent with the California Fish and Game Code and MBTA requirements. In addition, implementation of these mitigation measures would minimize impacts to special-status bird species by conducting vegetation removal outside of the nesting season for common and special-status bird species, and if that is not possible, by conducting pre-construction nesting surveys for nesting birds and implementing a nesting deterrent program, setting no-disturbance buffers around active nests and monitoring the project site to prevent new nest from being established during construction. With implementation of this mitigation measure, a less-than-significant
Page 3.4-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
impact would occur. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to Phase 1 of the HQCMP would be required for impacts to be less than significant.
Impact 3.4-2: Conflict with provisions of the Sacramento City Code intended to protect biological resources.
The project site is located within the City of Sacramento and subject to the provisions of the Sacramento City Code. Construction associated with the HQCMP may require the removal of on-site trees, some of which could be considered Private Protected or City Trees under the Sacramento City Code. Without acquisition of a permit from the City prior to tree removal, impacts would be considered significant.
The project site supports trees that could meet the size criteria for City Trees and Private Protected Trees. During implementation of the HQCMP, construction activities could result in the removal of on-site trees that qualify as City or Private Protected Trees. Without acquisition of a permit from the City of Sacramento prior to tree removal, conflicts with the City of Sacramento Tree Ordinance could occur, and impacts would be considered significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.4-2: Maintain consistency with City of Sacramento Tree Ordinance Upon approval of the HQCMP and prior to on-site construction activities involving tree removal, SMUD shall prepare a Landscape Inventory Report for the Headquarters Campus Master Plan Area, for those areas not covered under the Headquarters Building and Site Cultural Landscape Report (SMUD 2014). This mitigation requirement may also be satisfied through preparation of an Urban Forest Plan for the campus.
Prior to removal of on-site trees associate with a phase of development under the HQCMP, SMUD shall submit a tree permit application to the City’s Director of Department of Public Works for any trees within the permitting requirements that may be removed, pruned, or otherwise modified by project activities. The tree permit application will identify all tree removals, prunings, or modifications that are expected to occur as a result of project implementation. The application will also be accompanied by a tree replacement plan, consistent with ratios outlined in the City’s ordinance, for any proposed tree removals, if deemed necessary by the Director of Parks and Recreation for the City of Sacramento. A certified arborist shall approve all work plans prior to submittal to the City. Replacement trees will be planted on-site and incorporated into the landscape plans of the project. Tree planting will comply with the City’s landscaping requirements (Sacramento City Code Sections 17.612.010 and 17.612.040).
SMUD’s contractor shall erect protective fencing with tree protection signs around all trees (or tree groups) to be preserved during construction activities. The protective fence will be installed at the limits of the tree protection zone, usually the dripline of the tree or as defined by the project arborist or biologist. This will delineate the tree protection area and prevent unwanted activity in and around the trees and will reduce soil compaction in the root zones of the trees and other damage from heavy equipment. SMUD’s contractor
Page 3.4-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
will maintain the fence to keep it upright, taut, and aligned at all times. Fencing will be removed only after all construction activities are complete. Canopy or root pruning of any retained protected trees to accommodate construction and/or fire lane access will conform to the techniques and standards in the current edition of ANSI A300 (Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance—Standard Practices) or International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of this mitigation measure would require SMUD to acquire permits and implement the conditions of those permits in accordance with existing guidelines established by the City of Sacramento for the protection of trees. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 would avoid any conflict with local policies/ordinances intended to protect biological resources, thereby reducing this impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to Phase 1 of the HQCMP would be required if trees would be removed as part of construction.
Page 3.4-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3.4-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.5 Geology and Soils
This section describes the existing geologic conditions of the project site, including geology, soils, seismicity, and geologic hazards, and analyzes the potential geologic hazards and soils impacts associated with implementation of the project. Regulations and guidelines established by federal, state, and local jurisdictions provide the regulatory background that guides the assessment of potential environmental effects to these resources. The potential environmental effects of soil erosion on water quality and other stormwater issues are addressed in Section 3.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality.”
3.5.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act In October 1977, the U.S. Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977, Title 42, United States Code Sections 7701–7706, to reduce the risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the United States. To accomplish this, the act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). The mission of NEHRP includes improved understanding, characterization, and prediction of hazards and vulnerabilities; improved building codes and land use practices; risk reduction through post‐earthquake investigations and education; development and improvement of design and construction techniques; improved mitigation capacity; and, accelerated application of research results. The NEHRP designates the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the lead agency of the program and assigns several planning, coordinating, and reporting responsibilities. Other NEHRP agencies include the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Science Foundation, and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program Under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) controls water pollution by regulating point sources of pollution to waters of the United States. The California State Water Resources Control Board administers the NPDES permit program in California. Projects that disturb 1 acre or more of soil must obtain coverage under the state’s NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must be developed and implemented that provides specific construction-related best management practices (BMPs) to prevent soil erosion and loss of topsoil. Regulations related to water pollution from erosion are discussed further in Section 3.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality.”
Page 3.5-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The goal of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (Alquist-Priolo Act) (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 2621–2630) is to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes by regulating construction in active fault corridors. The act defines criteria for identifying active faults, giving legal support to terms such as active and inactive and establishes a process for reviewing building proposals in Earthquake Fault Zones. Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, faults are zoned and construction along or across these zones is strictly regulated if they are “sufficiently active” and “well-defined.” A fault is considered sufficiently active if one or more of its segments or strands shows evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (defined for purposes of the Act as within the last 11,000 years), or if its trace is clearly detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or below the earth’s surface. A fault is considered well defined if its trace can be clearly identified by a trained geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface, using standard professional techniques, criteria, and judgment (Hart and Bryant 2007). Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. The law addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The goal of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Sections 2690–2699.6) is to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist-Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake- related hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The act’s provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist-Priolo Act: The State is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local regulation of development.
California Building Code The California Building Code (CBC) (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) is based on the International Building Code (IBC). The ground motions for design that are mapped in the IBC are based on the USGS probabilistic Seismic Hazards Analysis maps. The IBC Seismic Zone Maps of Region 1 of the United States identify maximum considered earthquake motion for California and Nevada. These maps are used by engineers in establishing design characteristics for structures. The CBC has been modified from the IBC for California conditions with more detailed and/or more stringent regulations.
Page 3.5-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Specific minimum seismic safety and structural design requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The CBC identifies seismic factors that must be considered in structural design. Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates the excavation of foundations and retaining walls, while Chapter 18A regulates construction on unstable soils, such as expansive soils and areas subject to liquefaction. Appendix J of the CBC regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans As discussed in detail in Section 3.8, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) have adopted specific NPDES permits for a variety of activities that have the potential to discharge wastes (including sediment) to waters of the state. The SWRCB’s statewide stormwater general permit for construction activity (Order 2009- 0009-DWQ) is applicable to all land-disturbing construction activities that would disturb 1 acre or more. Compliance with the NPDES permit requires submittal to the Central Valley RWQCB of notices of intent to discharge, and implementation of SWPPPs that include BMPs to minimize water quality degradation during construction activities.
Local
City of Sacramento General Plan The following goals and policies from the Environmental Constraints and the Environmental Resources elements of the Sacramento 2035 General Plan are applicable to the proposed project.
Environmental Constraints Element Goal EC 1.1: Hazards Risk Reduction. Protect lives and property from seismic and geologic hazards and adverse soil conditions.
• Policy EC 1.1.1: Review Standards. The City shall regularly review and enforce all seismic and geologic safety standards and require the use of best management practices (BMPs) in site design and building construction methods.
• Policy EC 1.1.2: Geotechnical Investigations. The City shall require geotechnical investigations to determine the potential for ground rupture, ground-shaking, and liquefaction due to seismic events, as well as expansive soils and subsidence problems on sites where these hazards are potentially present.
Environmental Resources Element Goal ER 1.1: Water Quality Protection. Protect local watersheds, water bodies and groundwater resources, including creeks, reservoirs, the Sacramento and American Rivers, and their shorelines.
Page 3.5-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Policy ER 1.1.7: Construction Site Impacts. The City shall minimize disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by development, implement measures to protect areas from erosion and sediment loss, and continue to require construction contractors to comply with the City’s erosion and sediment control ordinance and stormwater management and discharge control ordinance.
City of Sacramento Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance The City’s Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance (Sacramento City Code, Title 15, Chapter 15.88) includes specific standards for project construction related to erosion control. This ordinance requires preparation and submittal of a grading plan along with erosion and sediment control plans that would be implemented both during and following the completion of construction activities. The plans must contain a list of all BMPs that would be used to reduce erosion and control stormwater runoff.
3.5.2 Environmental Setting
The project site is located in the Sacramento Valley, which forms the northern portion of the Great Valley geomorphic province of California. The Great Valley is a northwest- trending asymmetrical depression (formed by intersecting, downward-sloping folds of bedrock) approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long. It lies between the mountains of the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Cascade Range and Klamath Mountains to the north, and the Coast Ranges to the west.
Landforms and Soils
Landforms Most of the surface of the Great Valley is covered with Holocene (11,700 before Present [B.P.] to present day) and Pleistocene age (1.8 million to 11,700 B.P.) alluvium, composed primarily of sediments from the Sierra Nevada and the Coast Ranges, which were carried by rivers and deposited on the valley floor. As discussed in detail in Section 3.3, “Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources,” the project site is underlain by the Pleistocene-age Riverbank Formation.
The Great Valley is bounded on the west by the Great Valley fault zone and the Coast Ranges and on the east by the Sierra Nevada and the Foothills fault zone. Relatively few faults in the Great Valley have been active during the last 11,700 years. The closest faults to the project site with evidence of displacement during Holocene time are the Dunnigan Hills Fault (approximately 35 miles to the northwest) and the Cleveland Hills Fault (approximately 60 miles to the north). In general, active faults are located along the western margin of the Central Valley (e.g., the Great Valley Fault) and within the Coast Ranges (SMUD 2015).
Soil Characteristics A review of U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soil survey data indicates that the project site is composed of the Americanos–Urban Land Complex,
Page 3.5-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
San Joaquin–Urban Land Complex, and Urban Land. The eastern portion of the project site (containing the CSS) is composed of San Joaquin–Urban Land Complex; the central portion (containing the Headquarters Building and Field Reporting Facility [FRF] building) is composed of Americanos–Urban Land Complex; and the western portion is composed of Urban Land (NRCS 2018). Table 3.5-1 shows the relevant characteristics of these soil types.
Table 3.5-1 Project Site Soil Characteristics Water Wind Shrink-Swell Soil Map Unit Erosion Erosion Permeability4 Drainage Class Potential3 Hazard1 Hazard2 Americanos–Urban Land Moderately Moderate 5 Low Well drained Complex high San Joaquin–Urban Land Moderately Moderately well Moderate 6 Low Complex high drained Urban Land NR NR NR NR NR Notes: NR = not rated 1 Based on the erosion factor “Kw whole soil,” which is a measurement of relative soil susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion by water. 2 The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible. 3 Based on percentage of linear extensibility. Shrink-swell potential ratings of “moderate” to “very high” can result in damage to buildings, roads, and other structures. 4 Based on standard U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) class limits; Ksat refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. Source: NRCS 2018
Expansive Soils Expansive soils contain significant amounts of clay particles that have the ability to give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell), thus referred to as shrink-swell potential. When these soils swell, the change in volume can exert significant pressures on loads that are placed on them, such as building and structure foundations or underground utilities, and can result in structural distress and/or damage. Often, grading, site preparations, and backfill operations associated with subsurface structures can eliminate the potential for expansion. A review of NRCS (2018) soil survey data indicates that the locations where project-related earthmoving activities would occur are composed of soil types with a low shrink-swell potential (see Table 3.5-1).
Erosion and Runoff Erosion is a natural process whereby soil and highly-weathered rock materials are worn away and transported, most commonly by wind or water. Soil erosion can become problematic when human intervention causes rapid soil loss and the development of erosional features (such as incised channels, rills, and gullies) that undermine roads, buildings, or utilities. Vegetation clearing and earth moving reduces soil structure and cohesion, resulting in accelerated erosion. This typically occurs during construction activity involving grading and soil moving activities that loosen soils and makes them more susceptible to wind and water erosion. Further, the operation of associated heavy
Page 3.5-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
machinery and vehicles over access roads, staging areas, and work areas can compact soils and decrease their capacity to absorb runoff, resulting in rills, gullies, and excessive sediment transport. Natural rates of erosion can vary depending on slope, soil type, and vegetative cover. Soils containing high amounts of silt are typically more easily eroded, while coarse-grained (sand and gravel) soils are generally less susceptible to erosion.
Seismic Hazards
Faults The project site is located in the center of the Sacramento Valley, which has historically experienced a low level of seismic ground shaking. Within the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento region, there are no known faults; however, significant earthquakes have occurred on previously undetected faults. Faults located nearest to the City are the Bear Mountain and New Melones faults, about 23 miles east of Sacramento in the Sierra Nevada foothills, and the Midland Fault, about 26 miles west of Sacramento in Sonoma County. Another possible fault, the Dunnigan Hills Fault, lies northwest of Sacramento in Yolo County (City of Sacramento 2014).
Ground Shaking Ground shaking is a general term referring to all aspects of motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake and is normally the major cause of damage in seismic events. The extent of ground shaking is controlled by the magnitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from the epicenter, and local geologic conditions.
Based on historical seismic activity and fault and seismic hazards mapping, Sacramento County is considered to have relatively low potential for seismic activity (Sacramento County 2017).
Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Soil liquefaction is caused by pressure waves moving through the ground because of earthquakes. Loose, granular soils and non-plastic silts that are saturated by relatively shallow groundwater (generally less than 50 feet) are susceptible to liquefaction. Liquefaction causes soil to lose strength and “liquefy,” triggering structural distress or failure because of the dynamic settlement of the ground or a loss of strength in the soils underneath structures. Liquefaction in a subsurface layer can in turn cause lateral spreading of the ground surface, which usually takes place along weak shear zones that have formed within the liquefiable soil layer.
Liquefaction may also occur in the absence of a seismic event, when unconsolidated soil above a hardpan becomes saturated with water. Factors determining liquefaction potential are the soil type, the level and duration of seismic ground motions, the type and consistency of soils, and the depth to groundwater. Loose sands, peat deposits, and unconsolidated Holocene-age sediments are the most susceptible to liquefaction, while clayey silts, silty clays, and clays deposited in freshwater environments are generally
Page 3.5-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
stable under the influence of seismic ground shaking. Although the water table in Sacramento is generally shallow, the HQCMP area is underlain by stable, Pleistocene- age sediments of the Riverbank Formation (see Section 3.3, “Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources”) along with compacted artificial fill, and active seismic sources are a relatively long distance away (City of Sacramento 2014).
Slope Failure Slope failures, commonly referred to as landslides, include many phenomena that involve the downslope displacement and movement of material, triggered either by static (i.e., gravity) or dynamic (i.e., earthquake) forces. Exposed rock slopes undergo rockfalls, rockslides, or rock avalanches, while soil slopes experience soil slumps, rapid debris flows, and deep-seated rotational slides. Slope stability can depend on a number of complex variables, including the geology, structure, and amount of groundwater, as well as external processes such as climate, topography, slope geometry, and human activity. Landslides can occur on slopes of 15 percent or less, but the probability is greater on steeper slopes that exhibit old landslide features such as scarps, slanted vegetation, and transverse ridges. Elevations on the project site range from 30 to 80 feet above mean sea level (US Dept of State Geographer 2018); therefore, there is little to no risk of landslides.
3.5.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance/Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would result in a potentially significant impact related to geology and soils if it would:
• expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the state geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault;
strong seismic ground shaking;
seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or
landslides;
• result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;
• be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
Page 3.5-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property; or
• have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alterative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.
Analysis Methodology
The evaluation of potential geologic and soil impacts is based on a review of relevant literature, including the NRCS Soil Survey; background information for the project; and published geologic literature. The information obtained from these sources was reviewed and summarized to characterize existing conditions and to identify potential environmental effects related to geology and soils.
Issues or Potential Impacts Not Discussed Further
Fault Rupture Surface ground rupture along faults is generally limited to a linear zone a few yards wide. There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones within Sacramento County, and no known faults within the City of Sacramento and the Sacramento region. Consequently, the proposed project is not expected to expose people or structures to adverse effects caused by the rupture of a known fault. There would be no impact associated with fault rupture and this issue will not be analyzed further.
Seismic Ground Shaking The project site is located in the Sacramento Valley, which has historically experienced a low level of seismic ground shaking. Within the Sacramento region, there are no known active faults; however, several nearby faults are considered active and could cause seismic ground shaking at the project site. Depending on the strength of ground shaking, it is possible that structures in the area could be damaged during such an event. However, any construction within the project site would conform to the standards contained within California Building Code Title 24, which identifies specific design requirements to reduce damage from strong seismic ground shaking and ground failure. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant, and this issue will not be analyzed further.
Seismic-Related Ground Failure Soil liquefaction most commonly occurs when ground shaking from an earthquake causes a sediment layer saturated with groundwater to lose strength and take on the characteristics of a fluid, thus becoming similar to quicksand. Loose sands, peat deposits, and unconsolidated Holocene-age sediments are the most susceptible to liquefaction, while clayey silts, silty clays, and clays deposited in freshwater environments are generally stable under the influence of seismic ground shaking. As noted in Appendix B, the HQCMP area is underlain by stable, Pleistocene-age sediments of the Riverbank Formation along with compacted artificial fill, and active seismic sources are a relatively
Page 3.5-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
long distance away. Impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant, and this issue will not be analyzed further.
Landslides The project site is located in a flat area, with elevations ranging from 30 to 80 feet above mean sea level; there is no risk of landslides in such terrain. Consequently, the project would not expose people or structures to landslides. No impact would occur and the issue will not be analyzed further.
Expansive Soils Expansive soils shrink and swell as a result of moisture change. A review of NRCS soil survey data indicates that the locations where project-related earthmoving activities would occur are composed of soil types with a low shrink-swell potential. There would be no impact associated with expansive soils and this issue will not be analyzed further.
Septic Tanks The project does not include the construction of any septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, the project would have no impact related to soils adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems, and this issue will not be analyzed further.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.5-1: Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Implementation of the HQCMP would involve construction of new/renovated facilities over a period of approximately 20 years. Although construction activities would be temporary, grading and other ground-disturbing activities would expose soil and could result in erosion. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
Implementation of the HQCMP would involve phased construction of new/modernized uses within the Headquarters Campus over a period of 20 years. It is anticipated that no more than approximately 50,000 sf of new construction would occur at any given time as a result of HQCMP implementation. Construction would include grading, vegetation removal, and other ground-disturbing activities that would expose soil and could result in accelerated erosion. Where vegetation is removed or soils are unconsolidated in newly graded areas, surface water and wind could result in the loss of topsoil. Construction activities would disturb more than 1 acre of land during construction, which would require coverage under the State of California General Construction Storm Water Permit (Construction General Permit [CGP], Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ as modified by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ). Because the project could result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, this impact would be potentially significant.
Page 3.5-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Mitigation Measure 3.5-1: Prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan. Before any ground-disturbing activities begin, the SMUD contractor shall apply for and maintain coverage under the General Construction Storm Water Permit. The contractor shall prepare and implement a SWPPP, including an erosion control plan that includes erosion control measures and construction waste containment measures to ensure that waters of the United States and the State are protected during and after project construction. The SWPPP shall include site design measures to minimize offsite stormwater runoff that might otherwise affect surrounding habitats. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board will review and monitor the effectiveness of the SWPPP through mandatory reporting by SMUD and the contractor as required.
The SWPPP shall be prepared with the following objectives: (a) identify all pollutant sources, including sources of sediment, that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges from the construction of the project; (b) identify BMPs that effectively reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the site during construction to the Best Available Technology/Best Control Technology standard; (c) provide calculations and design details as well as BMP controls for site run-on that are complete and correct; (d) identify project discharge points and receiving waters; and (e) provide stabilization BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants following construction.
The contractor shall implement the SWPPP, including all BMPs, and perform inspections of all BMPs during construction. Potential SWPPP BMPs could include, but would not be limited to the following:
• preserve existing vegetation where possible;
• surface roughening of final grades to prevent erosion, decrease run-off, increase infiltration, and aid in vegetation establishment;
• riparian buffers or filter strips along the perimeter of the disturbed area to intercept pollutants prior to offsite discharge;
• placing fiber rolls around on-site drain inlets to prevent sediment and construction- related debris from entering inlets;
• placing fiber rolls along down-gradient disturbed areas of the site to reduce runoff flow velocities and prevent sediment from leaving the site;
• placing silt fences down-gradient of disturbed areas to slow down runoff and retain sediment;
• stabilizing the construction entrance to reduce the tracking of mud and dirt onto public roads by construction vehicles;
Page 3.5-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• staging excavated and stored construction materials and soil stockpiles in stable areas and covering materials to prevent erosion; and
• stabilizing temporary construction entrances to limit transport/introduction of invasive species and control fugitive dust emissions.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 would minimize potential topsoil loss and soil erosion through soil stabilization measures. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on erosion and loss of topsoil. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to the Phase 1 elements of the HQCMP would be required to minimize potential sedimentation and erosion associated with exposed soils.
Impact 3.5-2: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project.
Historically the project area has experienced a low level of seismic activity; however, there is the potential for unstable soils to exist in the project area. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
As discussed above, the project area is not within a seismically-active area and the potential for onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse is low. Based on a review of existing information, the HQCMP area is underlain by stable, Pleistocene-age sediments of the Riverbank Formation along with compacted artificial fill. However, a site-specific geotechnical investigation has not been performed to determine the stability of onsite soils. Because a site-specific geotechnical investigation has not yet been performed, it is unknown if onsite soils would become unstable as a result of construction. This impact analysis conservatively assumes that portions of the project would be located on soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project. Thus, this impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.5-2: Conduct a site-specific geotechnical investigation. Prior to final design of a new/renovated structure within the Headquarters Campus, the SMUD contractor shall complete a site-specific geotechnical investigation and report for the project, to be prepared by a California Registered Civil Engineer or Geotechnical Engineer. The purpose of the report will be to set forth design and construction measures intended to ensure site stability in compliance with applicable seismic and building codes. All design and construction measures provided in the geotechnical report prepared for the project site shall be implemented during further design and construction, as applicable. The report shall address and make recommendations on the following:
• road, pavement, and parking area design; • structural foundations; • grading practices; • erosion/winterization;
Page 3.5-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• special problems discovered onsite (e.g., groundwater, expansive/unstable soils); and • slope stability.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 would minimize potential impacts associated with unstable soils by requiring an analysis of the stability of on-site soils and implementing measures to stabilize soils as needed prior to construction. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact related to unstable soils. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to the Phase 1 elements of the HQCMP would be required because of anticipated ground disturbance and the potential for exposed soils.
Page 3.5-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy Use
This section presents the current state of climate change science and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions sources in California; a summary of applicable regulations; quantification of project-generated GHG emissions and discussion about their contribution to global climate change; and analysis of the project’s resiliency to climate change-related risks. In addition, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the project’s potential impacts.
This section was also prepared pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 and Appendix F of the CEQA guidelines, which require that EIRs include a discussion of the potential energy impacts of projects. The analysis considers whether the HQCMP would result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
3.6.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Supreme Court Ruling The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency responsible for implementing the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on April 2, 2007, that carbon dioxide (CO2) is an air pollutant as defined under the CAA, and that EPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. The ruling in this case resulted in EPA taking steps to regulate GHG emissions and lent support for state and local agencies’ efforts to reduce GHG emissions.
Regulations for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Passenger Cars and Trucks and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards In October 2012, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA), on behalf of the Department of Transportation, issued final rules to further reduce GHG emissions and improve corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for light-duty vehicles for model years (MY) 2017 and beyond. NHTSA’s CAFE standards have been enacted under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act since 1978. This national program requires automobile manufacturers to build a single light-duty national fleet that meets all requirements under both federal programs and the standards of California and other states. This program would increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) limiting vehicle emissions to 163 grams of CO2 per mile for the fleet of cars and light-duty trucks by MY 2025 (Federal Register 2010; 77 FR 62630).
In January 2017, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy signed her determination to maintain the current GHG emissions standards for MY 2022-2025 vehicles. However, on March 15, 2017, the new EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, and Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao announced that EPA intends to reconsider the final determination.
Page 3.6-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
EPA intends to make a new Final Determination regarding the appropriateness of the standards no later than April 1, 2018 (EPA 2017a).
Clean Power Plan The Clean Power Plan was unveiled by President Obama on August 3, 2015. The plan aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electrical power generation by 32 percent within 25 years relative to 2005 levels. President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 28, 2017 mandating EPA to review the plan. The review has not been completed and made public at the time of this writing.
Energy Federal and state agencies regulate energy consumption through various policies, standards, and programs. At the local level, individual cities and counties establish policies in their general plans and climate action plans related to the energy efficiency of new development and land use permitting and to the use of renewable energy sources.
Energy conservation is embodied in many federal, state, and local statutes and policies. At the federal level, energy standards apply to numerous products (EPA EnergyStar™ program) and transportation (e.g., fuel efficiency standards). At the state level, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth energy standards for buildings. Further, the State provides rebates/tax credits for installation of renewable energy systems, and offers the Flex Your Power program to promote conservation in multiple areas.
Energy
Energy Policy Act of 1992 The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum, increase renewable energy use, support energy efficiency, and improve air quality. EPAct includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) in large, centrally-fueled fleets in metropolitan areas. EPAct (Title III-V) requires certain federal, state, and local government and private fleets to purchase a percentage of light-duty AFVs capable of running on alternative fuels each year. In addition, financial incentives are also included in EPAct. Federal tax deductions will be allowed for businesses and individuals to cover the incremental cost of AFVs. States are also required by the Act to consider a variety of incentive programs to help promote AFVs.
Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy.
Page 3.6-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce U.S. dependence on oil. It represents a major step forward in expanding the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil, and confronting climate change. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels; and reduces U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon in 2020 for all passenger cars and light trucks–an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent.
By addressing renewable fuels and CAFE standards, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will build on progress made by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in setting out a comprehensive national energy strategy for the 21st century.
State
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Executive Order S-3-05 and Associated Supreme Court CEQA Decision Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the executive order established total GHG emission targets for the state. Specifically, statewide emissions are to be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The executive order was the subject of a California Appellate Court decision, Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) (November 24, 2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1056, which was reviewed by the California Supreme Court in January 2017. The Supreme Court decided a singular question in the case, which was released on July 13, 2017. The California Supreme Court ruled that SANDAG did not abuse its discretion by declining “to adopt the 2050 goal as a measure of significance in light of the fact that the Executive Order does not specify any plan or implementation measures to achieve its goal.”
In addition to concluding that an EIR need not use this executive order’s goal for determining significance, the Court described several principles relevant to CEQA review of GHG impacts, including: (1) EIRs should “reasonably evaluate” the “long-range GHG emission impacts for the year 2050;” (2) the 2050 target is “grounded in sound science” in that it is “based on the scientifically supported level of emissions reduction needed to avoid significant disruption of the climate.” The Court also ruled that “an EIR’s designation of a particular adverse environmental effect as ‘significant’ does not excuse the EIR’s failure to reasonably describe the nature and magnitude of the adverse effect.” The Court also recognized that the 40 percent reduction in 1990 GHG levels by 2030 is “widely
Page 3.6-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
acknowledged” as a “necessary interim target to ensure California meets its longer-range goal of reducing greenhouse gas emission 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050.” Senate Bill (SB) 32 has since defined the 2030 goal in statue (discussed below).
Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 In September 2006, Governor Schwarzenegger signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, Assembly Bill (AB) 32 as part of the California Health and Safety Code. AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 32 also requires that these reductions “…shall remain in effect unless otherwise amended or repealed.” Further, AB 32 explains that “It is the intent of the Legislature that the statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit continue in existence and be used to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases beyond 2020,” and that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) shall make recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature on how to continue reductions of greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020.” [California Health and Safety Code, Division 25.5, Part 3, Section 38551]
Assembly Bill 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan and Updates In December 2008, CARB adopted its first version of its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contained the main strategies California will implement to achieve the mandate of AB 32 (2006) to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In May 2014, CARB released and subsequently adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan to identify the next steps in reaching the goals of AB 32 (2006) and evaluate the progress made between 2000 and 2012 (CARB 2014). After releasing multiple versions of proposed updates in 2017, CARB adopted the next version titled California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan) in December of that same year (CARB 2017). The 2017 Scoping Plan indicates that California is on track to achieve the 2020 statewide GHG target mandated by AB 32 of 2006 (CARB 2017:9). It also lays out the framework for achieving the mandate of SB 32 of 2016 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by the end of 2030 (CARB 2017). The 2017 Scoping Plan identifies the GHG reductions needed by each emissions sector.
The 2017 Scoping Plan also identifies how GHGs associated with proposed projects could be evaluated under CEQA (CARB 2017:101-102). Specifically, it states that achieving “no net increase” in GHG emissions is an appropriate overall objective of projects evaluated under CEQA if conformity with an applicable local GHG reduction plan cannot be demonstrated. CARB recognizes that it may not be appropriate or feasible for every development project to mitigate its GHG emissions to zero and that an increase in GHG emissions because of a project may not necessarily imply a substantial contribution to the cumulatively significant environmental impact of climate change.
Senate Bill 375 SB 375, signed by the Governor in September 2008, aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB
Page 3.6-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or Alternative Planning Strategy, showing prescribed land use allocation in each MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan. CARB, in consultation with the MPOs, is to provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in their respective regions for 2020 and 2035.
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) serves as the MPO for Sacramento, Placer, El Dorado, Yuba, Sutter, and Yolo Counties, excluding those lands located in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The project is in Sacramento County. SACOG adopted its Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) 2035 in 2012, and completed an update adopted on February 18, 2016. SACOG was tasked by CARB to achieve a 9 percent per capita reduction compared to 2012 emissions by 2020 and a 16 percent per capita reduction by 2035, which CARB confirmed the region would achieve by implementing its SCS (CARB 2013).
Executive Order B-30-15 On April 20, 2015 Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. signed EO B-30-15 to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The Governor’s executive order aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments such as the 28-nation European Union which adopted the same target in October 2014. California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32, discussed above). California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is expected to make it possible to reach the ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This is in line with the scientifically-determined levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions are projected, such as super droughts and rising sea levels.
Senate Bill 32 and Assembly Bill 197 of 2016 In August 2016, Governor Brown signed SB 32 and AB 197, which serves to extend California’s GHG reduction programs beyond 2020. SB 32 amended the Health and Safety Code to include Section 38566, which contains language to authorize CARB to achieve a statewide GHG emission reduction of at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by no later than December 31, 2030. SB 32 codified the targets established by EO B-30-15 for 2030, which set the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed in EOs S-3-05 and B-30-15 of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels by 2050.
Advanced Clean Cars Program In January 2012, CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars program which combines the control of GHG emissions and criteria air pollutants, as well as requirements for greater numbers of zero-emission vehicles, into a single package of standards for vehicle model years 2017 through 2025. The new rules strengthen the GHG standard for 2017 models and beyond for passenger vehicles. This will be achieved through existing
Page 3.6-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
technologies, the use of stronger and lighter materials, and more efficient drivetrains and engines. The program’s zero-emission vehicle regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and/or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025. The program also includes a clean fuels outlet regulation designed to support the commercialization of zero-emission hydrogen fuel cell vehicles planned by vehicle manufacturers by 2015 by requiring increased numbers of hydrogen fueling stations throughout the state. The number of stations will grow as vehicle manufacturers sell more fuel cell vehicles. By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, the statewide fleet of new cars and light trucks will emit 34 percent fewer global warming gases and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions than the statewide fleet in 2016 (CARB 2012, 2016).
Senate Bill X1-2, the California Renewable Energy Resources Act of 2011 and Senate Bill 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 SB X1-2 of 2011 requires all California utilities to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. SB X1-2 sets a three-stage compliance period requiring all California utilities, including independently-owned utilities, publicly-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators, to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewables by December 31, 2013; 25 percent by December 31, 2016; and 33 percent by December 31, 2020. SB X1-2 also requires the renewable electricity standard to be met increasingly with renewable energy that is supplied to the California grid from sources within, or directly proximate to, California. SB X1-2 mandates that renewables from these sources make up at least 50 percent of the total renewable energy for the 2011-2013 compliance period, at least 65 percent for the 2014-2016 compliance period, and at least 75 percent for 2016 and beyond. In October 2015, SB 350 was signed by Governor Brown, which requires retail sellers and publicly-owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2030.
California Building Efficiency Standards of 2016 (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations) Buildings in California are required to comply with California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) regarding energy conservation standards. These standards were first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption and are updated on an approximately 3-year cycle to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficient technologies and methods. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2017 must follow the 2016 standards (CEC 2015). Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions.
Page 3.6-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Energy
Warren-Alquist Act The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the CEC. The Act established state policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately- owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields.
State of California Energy Plan The CEC is responsible for preparing the State Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The current plan is the 1997 California Energy Plan. The plan calls for the State to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for zero-emission vehicles and addressing their infrastructure needs; and encouragement of urban design that reduces vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodates pedestrian and bicycle access.
Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum Pursuant to AB 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000), CEC and CARB prepared and adopted a joint agency report in 2003, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT (CEC and CARB 2003). Further, in response to the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Reports, Governor Davis directed the CEC to take the lead in developing a long-term plan to increase alternative fuel use.
A performance-based goal of AB 2076 was to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand by 2020.
Integrated Energy Policy Report SB 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) required CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and prices. The CEC shall use these assessments and forecasts to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety (Public Resources Code Section 25301[a]). This work culminated in the Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR).
CEC adopts an IEPR every two years and an update every other year. The 2017 IEPR is the most recent IEPR, which was adopted February 21, 2018 (CEC 2018). The 2015
Page 3.6-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
IEPR provides a summary of priority energy issues currently facing the State, outlining strategies and recommendation to further the State’s goal of ensuring reliable, affordable, and environmentally-responsible energy sources. Energy topics covered in the report include progress toward statewide renewable energy targets and issues facing future renewable development; efforts to increase energy efficiency in existing and new buildings; progress by utilities in achieving energy efficiency targets and potential; improving coordination among the State’s energy agencies; streamlining power plant licensing processes; results of preliminary forecasts of electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel supply and demand; future energy infrastructure needs; the need for research and development efforts to statewide energy policies; and issues facing California’s nuclear power plants.
Senate Bill 1078: California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program SB 1078 (Chapter 516, Statutes of 2002) establishes a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for electricity supply. The RPS requires that retail sellers of electricity, including independently-owned utilities, publicly-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, provide 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. This target date was moved forward by SB 1078 to require compliance by 2010. In addition, electricity providers subjects to the RPS must increase their renewable share by at least 1 percent each year. The outcome of this legislation will impact regional transportation powered by electricity. As of 2016, that the State has reported that 21 percent of electricity is sourced from certified renewable sources.
Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 The Clean Energy and Pollution Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources to be increased to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. This act also requires doubling of the energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through energy efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.
Energy Action Plan The first Energy Action Plan (EAP) emerged in 2003 from a crisis atmosphere in California’s energy markets. The State’s three major energy policy agencies (CEC, CPUC, and the Consumer Power and Conservation Financing Authority [established under deregulation and now defunct]) came together to develop one high-level, coherent approach to meeting California’s electricity and natural gas needs. It was the first time that energy policy agencies formally collaborated to define a common vision and set of strategies to address California’s future energy needs and emphasize the importance of the impacts of energy policy on the California environment.
In the October 2005 Energy Action Plan II, CEC and CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding some important dimensions to the policy areas included in the original EAP, such as the emerging importance of climate change, transportation-related energy issues and research and development activities. The CEC adopted an update to the EAP
Page 3.6-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
II in February 2008 that supplements the earlier EAPs and examines the State’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.
Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAF Plan) in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other state, federal, and local agencies. The SAF Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative non-petroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes the costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
Local
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District The Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) is the primary agency responsible for addressing air quality concerns in Sacramento County–its role is discussed further in Section 3.2, “Air Quality.” SMAQMD also recommends measures for analyzing project-generated GHGs in CEQA analyses and offers multiple potential GHG reduction measures for land use development projects. SMAQMD developed thresholds of significance to provide a uniform scale to measure the significance of GHG emissions from land use and stationary source projects in compliance with CEQA and AB 32. SMAQMD’s goals in developing GHG thresholds include ease of implementation; use of standard analysis tools; and emissions mitigation consistent with AB 32. However, since the passage of SB 32 and AB 197 and the associated adoption of a revised statewide emissions target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, SMAQMD has not developed new thresholds in compliance with this target.
City of Sacramento General Plan The following goals and policies from the 2035 General Plan are considered relevant to climate change and GHG emissions for projects within the limits of City of Sacramento, which includes the project site. Numerous policies within the 2035 General Plan address sustainable development, which influence operational mobile- and area-source emissions. Policies and Implementation Programs throughout the Land Use and Mobility elements promote reductions in VMT through mix and density of land uses, walkable neighborhood design, bicycle facilities and infrastructure, public transportation facilities and infrastructure. Relevant policies are summarized below (City of Sacramento 2015).
Land Use • Policy LU 2.6.1: Sustainable Development Patterns. The City shall promote compact development patterns, mixed use, and higher-development intensities that use land
Page 3.6-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
efficiently; reduce pollution and automobile dependence and the expenditure of energy and other resources; and facilitate walking, bicycling, and transit use.
• Policy LU 2.6.4: Sustainable Building Practices. The City shall promote and, where appropriate, require sustainable building practices that incorporate a “whole system” approach to designing and constructing buildings that consume less energy, water and other resources, facilitate natural ventilation, use daylight effectively, and are healthy, safe, comfortable, and durable.
• Policy LU 2.6.7: Green Building Retrofit. The City shall promote the retrofitting of existing structures with green building technologies/practices and encourage structures being renovated to be built to a higher green building standard such as CalGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).
• Policy LU 2.6.10: Promote Resiliency. The City shall continue to collaborate with nonprofit organizations, neighborhoods groups, and other community organizations to promote the issues of air quality, food availability, renewable energy systems, sustainable land use and the reduction of GHGs.
Mobility • Policy M 1.3.3: Improve Transit Access. The City shall support the Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) in addressing identified gaps in public transit networks by working with RT to appropriately locate passenger facilities and stations, providing and maintaining pedestrian walkways and bicycle access to transit stations and stops, and dedicating public rights of way as necessary for transit-only lanes, transit stops, and transit vehicle stations and layover.
• Policy M 1.4.1: The City shall work with a broad range of agencies (e.g., SACOG, SMAQMD, Sacramento RT, Caltrans) to encourage and support programs that increase regional average vehicle occupancy, including the provision of traveler information, shuttles, preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, transit pass subsidies, road and parking pricing, and other methods.
• Policy M 1.5.1: Facilities for Emerging Technologies. The City shall assist in the provision of support facilities such as advanced fueling stations (e.g., electric and hydrogen) for emerging technologies.
• Policy M 1.5.5: Support Zero- and Low-Emission Vehicle Adoption. The City shall continue to collaborate with its State and regional partners to support)rapid adoption of zero-emissions and low-emission vehicles, including standardizing infrastructure and regulations for public electric vehicle charging stations, streamlining the permit- process for private electric vehicle charging stations (including home charging stations), developing guidelines and standards for dedicated and preferential parking for zero- and low-emissions vehicles (including charging stations for plug-in-electric vehicles, where necessary).
Page 3.6-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Utilities • Policy U 2.1.10: Water Conservation Standards. The City shall achieve a 20 percent reduction in per-capita water use by 2020 consistent with the State’s 20x2020 Water Conservation Plan.
• Policy U 2.1.13: Recycled Water. The City shall continue to investigate the feasibility of utilizing recycled water where appropriate, cost effective, safe, and environmentally sustainable.
• Policy U 2.1.15: Landscaping. The City shall continue to require the use of water- efficient and river-friendly landscaping in all new development, and shall use water conservation gardens (e.g., Glen Ellen Water Conservation Office) to demonstrate.
• Policy U 5.1.1: Zero Waste. The City shall achieve zero waste to landfills by 2040 through reusing, reducing, and recycling solid waste; and using conversion technology if appropriate. In the interim, the City shall achieve a waste reduction goal of 75 percent diversion from the waste stream over 2005 levels by 2020 and 90 percent diversion over 2005 levels by 2030, and shall support the Solid Waste Authority in increasing commercial solid waste diversion rates to 30 percent.
• Policy U 5.1.15: Recycling and Reuse of Construction Wastes. The City shall require recycling and reuse of construction wastes, including recycling materials generated by the demolition and remodeling of buildings, with the objective of diverting 85 percent to a certified recycling processor.
• Policy U 6.1.6: Renewable Energy. The City shall encourage the installation and construction of renewable energy systems and facilities such as wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, and biomass facilities.
• Policy U 6.1.14: Energy Efficiency Partnerships. The City shall continue to build partnerships (e.g., Sacramento County Business Environmental Resource Center (BERC) and SMUD) to promote energy efficiency and conservation for the business community and residents.
Environmental Resources • Policy ER 6.1.6: Community Greenhouse Gas Reductions. The City shall reduce community GHG emissions by 15 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2020, and strive to reduce community emissions by 49 percent and 83 percent by 2035 and 2050, respectively.
• Policy ER 6.1.7: Greenhouse Gas Reduction in New Development. The City shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions from new development by discouraging auto- dependent sprawl and dependence on the private automobile; promoting water conservation and recycling; promoting development that is compact, mixed use, pedestrian friendly, and transit oriented; promoting energy-efficient building design
Page 3.6-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
and site planning; improving the jobs/housing ratio in each community; and other methods of reducing emissions.
• Policy ER 6.1.8: Additional GHG Emission Programs. The City shall continue to evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of new policies, programs, and regulations that contribute to achieving the City’s long-term GHG emissions reduction goals.
• Policy ER 6.1.9: Climate Change Assessment and Monitoring. The City shall continue to assess and monitor performance of GHG emissions reduction efforts beyond 2020, progress toward meeting long-term GHG emissions reduction goals, the effects of climate change, and the levels of risk in order to plan a community that can adapt to changing climate conditions and be resilient to negative changes and impacts.
• Policy ER 6.1.10: Coordination with SMAQMD. The City shall coordinate with SMAQMD to ensure projects incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions and air pollution if not already provided for through project design.
Sacramento Climate Action Plan The Sacramento Climate Action Plan (CAP) was adopted on February 14, 2012 by the Sacramento City Council and was incorporated into the 2035 General Plan. The CAP includes GHG emission reduction targets, strategies, and implementation measures developed to help the city reach these targets. Reduction strategies address GHG emissions associated with transportation and land use, energy, water, waste management and recycling, agriculture, and open space. The plan also includes measures designed to adapt and enhance resiliency in the face of the projected physical impacts of climate change anticipated in the region. The City’s goals related to transportation and energy use are described below (City of Sacramento 2012).
• Improve accessibility and system connectivity by removing physical and operational barriers to safe travel.
• Reduce reliance on the private automobile.
• Use emerging transportation technologies and services to increase transportation system efficiency.
• Design, construct, and maintain a universally accessible, safe, convenient, integrated and well-connected pedestrian system that promotes walking.
• Create and maintain a safe, comprehensive, and integrated transit system as an essential component of a multimodal transportation system.
• Support the development and provision of privately funded and/or privately-operated transit services that support citywide and regional goals by reducing single-occupant vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled and GHG emissions.
Page 3.6-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• The City and other agencies within jurisdiction over roadways within City limits shall plan, design, operate and maintain all streets and roadways to accommodate and promote safe and convenient travel for all users – pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and persons of all abilities, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers.
• Enhance the quality of life within existing neighborhoods through the use of neighborhood traffic management and traffic calming techniques, while recognizing the City’s desire to provide a grid system that creates a high level of connectivity.
• Maintain an interconnected system of streets that allows travel on multiple routes by multiple modes, balancing access, mobility and place-making functions with sensitivity to the existing and planned land use context of each corridor and major street segment.
• Create and maintain a safe, comprehensive, and integrated bicycle system and set of support facilities throughout the city that encourage bicycling that is accessible to all. Provide bicycle facilities, programs and services and implement other transportation and land use policies as necessary to achieve the City’s bicycle mode share goal as documented in the Bicycle Master Plan.
• Provide and manage parking such that it balances the citywide goal of economic development, livable neighborhoods, sustainability, and public safety with the compact multi-modal urban environment prescribed by the General Plan.
• Provide for the energy needs of the city and decrease dependence on nonrenewable energy sources through energy conservation, efficiency, and renewable resource strategies.
3.6.2 Environmental Setting
This discussion presents the current state of climate change science and GHG emissions sources in California; a summary of applicable regulations.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Physical Scientific Basis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. The earth has a much lower temperature than the sun; therefore, the earth emits lower frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere.
Page 3.6-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases (i.e., hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)). Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are found to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is “extremely likely” (i.e., 95 percent to 100 percent probable) that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2014:3-5).
Climate change is a global problem caused by emissions in multiple countries, but with regionally specific physical impacts. Unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants with regional and local sources and impacts, GHG emissions from all over the globe are collectively responsible for the overall changes in climate, which are experienced in different ways depending on location. Whereas most pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the lifetime of any GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be determined with any certainty, it is understood that more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and other forms of sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptake every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013:467).
The quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere that ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known, but is enormous; no single project alone, considered apart from the accumulation of historic emissions, would measurably contribute to an incremental change in the global average temperature, or to global, local, or micro climates. Thus, from the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts relative to global climate change are inherently cumulative. Effects from global climate change are discussed in further detail below.
GHG emissions are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, electricity generation and imports, residential, commercial, and agricultural emissions sectors (CARB 2017). In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by industrial (CARB 2017). Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. N2O is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO2 sinks, or reservoirs, include soil, vegetation (including shrubs and trees) and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through sequestration and dissolution (CO2 dissolving into the water), respectively, two of the most common processes for removing CO2 from the atmosphere.
Page 3.6-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
City of Sacramento GHG Inventory According to the Final Sacramento Climate Action Plan, GHG emissions in 2005 for the City of Sacramento totaled 4,161,823 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent each year (CO2e/year). Breakdowns by emissions sector are presented in Table 3.6-1 These emissions are the result of all community-wide activities in the City’s jurisdictional boundary, with the City’s municipal operations emissions included as a subset of the total GHG emissions.
Table 3.6-1 Sacramento 2005 GHG Inventory by Emissions Sector
Emissions Sector MT CO2e Percent On-Road Transportation 2,013,962 48.8 Commercial and Industrial Energy 979,777 23.5 Residential Energy 748,792 18.0 Waste 241,862 5.8 Wastewater Treatment 57,380 1.4 Industrial Specific 28,656 0.7 Water Related 12,810 0.3 Municipal Operations 78,584 1.9 Total Emissions 4,161,823 100
Notes: MT CO2e/year = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year Source: City of Sacramento 2012
Effects of Climate Change on the Environment
According to the IPCC, which was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, global average temperature is expected to increase by 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) by the end of the century, depending on future GHG emission scenarios (IPCC 2014). According to the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA), temperatures in California are projected to increase 2 to 5°F by 2050 and by 4 to 9°F by 2100 (CNRA 2009). Extreme heat days, defined as days from April through October where the maximum daily temperature was above the 98th percentile from the historical max temperature from 1961-1990, occurred four times per year on average in the Sacramento region during this historical period. This number is projected to rise to an average of 17 days per year from 2021-2050, and increase further to as many as 45 days per year by the end of the century (Cal-Adapt 2017).
Other environmental resources could be indirectly affected by the accumulation of GHG emissions and resulting rise in global average temperature. In the recent years, California has been marked by extreme weather and its effects. According to CNRA’s draft report, Safeguarding California Plan: 2017 Update (CNRA 2017), California experienced the driest four-year statewide precipitation on record from 2012 through 2015; the warmest years on average in 2014, 2015, and 2016; and the smallest and second smallest Sierra snowpack on record in 2015 and 2014. The northern Sierra Nevada range experienced its wettest year on record in 2016, though there is concern that drought conditions are
Page 3.6-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
returning to the state in 2018. The changes in precipitation exacerbate wildfires throughout California with increasing frequency, size, burn intensity and damage to the landscape and to public and private property. As temperatures increase, the increase in precipitation falling as rain rather than snow also could lead to increased potential for floods because water that would normally be held in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountains until spring would flow into the Central Valley concurrently with winter rainstorm events. This scenario would place more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system. Furthermore, in the extreme scenario involving the rapid loss of the Antarctic ice sheet, sea level along California’s coastline could rise up to 10 feet by 2100, which is approximately 30 to 40 times faster than sea level rise experienced over the last century (CNRA 2017).
Changes in precipitation patterns and increased temperatures are expected to alter the distribution and character of natural vegetation and associated moisture content of plants and soils. An increase in frequency of extreme heat events and drought are also expected. These changes are expected to lead to increased frequency and intensity of wildfires (CNRA 2012:3).
Another outcome of global climate change is sea level rise. Based on the State’s draft Sea-Level Rise Guidance document released by the Ocean Protection Council in November 2017, sea levels in California, under median probability scenario (50 percent chance of occurring), are predicted to rise 0.4 feet by 2030 and 0.9 feet by 2050. By 2100, sea levels in California are projected to rise to 2.5 feet under a high emissions scenario (Ocean Protection Council 2017:18).
Energy
Energy Types and Sources California relies on a regional power system comprised of a diverse mix of natural gas, petroleum, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. One third of energy commodities consumed in California is natural gas. In 2014, approximately 35 percent of all natural gas consumed in the State was used to generate electricity. Residential land uses represented approximately 17 percent of California’s natural gas consumption with the balance consumed by the industrial, resource extraction, and commercial sectors (U.S. Energy Information Administration [EIA] 2014).
Power plants in California meet approximately 68 percent of the in-state electricity demand; hydroelectric power from the Pacific Northwest provides another 12 percent; and power plants in the southwestern U.S. provide another 20 percent (EIA 2014). The contribution of in-state and out-of-state power plants depend upon, among other factors, the precipitation that occurred in the previous year and the corresponding amount of hydroelectric power that is available.
SMUD is the primary electricity supplier in Sacramento County and offers both residential and commercial customers two levels of participation on renewable energy resources through its “Greenergy” program: 50 percent renewable-powered or 100 percent
Page 3.6-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
renewable-powered. SMUD has also implemented the SolarShares Program which began in 2008 and allows SMUD customers to purchase shares in SMUD-owned and - operated solar array facilities. The program allows customers located in unsuitable areas for residential solar power generation (e.g., shaded roofs) to still participate in the customer and community benefits of solar power generation. (U.S. Department of Energy 2014).
Sales of battery electric vehicles in Sacramento County increased an average of 45 percent year-over-year between 2011 and 2017 (Center for Sustainable Energy 2017), exceeding the national average of 28 percent (NREL 2016).
Commercial Energy Use Commercial buildings represent just under one-fifth of U.S. energy consumption with office space, retail, and educational facilities representing about half of commercial sector energy consumption. In aggregate, commercial buildings consumed 46 percent of building energy consumption and approximately 19 percent of U.S. energy consumption. In comparison, the residential sector consumed approximately 22 percent of U.S. energy consumption (U.S. Department of Energy 2012).
Energy Facilities and Services in the Project Area Electricity services for the project would be provided by SMUD, who is also the lead agency for the project, while natural gas services would be provided by Pacific Gas and Electric. The project does include a series of potential design features which would facilitate on-site generation of energy to be used by facilities on the project site including solar PV arrays, solar thermal energy systems, and fuel cells for emergency power requirements.
3.6.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance/Significance Criteria
Greenhouse Gas Emissions The issue of global climate change is inherently a cumulative issue, because on their own the GHG emissions of an individual project cannot be shown to have any material effect on global climate. Thus, the level of GHG emissions associated with implementation of the HQCMP is addressed as a cumulative impact.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 recommends that a lead agency consider the extent to which a project or plan complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. In Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, two questions are provided to help assess if the project would result in a potentially significant impact on climate change. These questions ask whether the project would:
Page 3.6-17 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or
• conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs?
In California, some counties, cities, and air districts have developed guidance and thresholds of significance for determining significance of GHG emissions that occur within their jurisdiction. SMUD is the CEQA Lead Agency for the project and is, therefore, responsible for determining whether a particular impact would be considered significant.
For lead agencies that have not adopted CEQA thresholds, they typically rely on local significance thresholds that have been established by local agencies. In the case of GHG emissions, SMAQMD is the local air district for the project and has developed CEQA guidance and thresholds for GHG emissions. The thresholds recommended by SMAQMD are aligned with the statewide target for year 2020 mandated by AB 32 of 2006. SMAQMD has not developed any thresholds of significance aligned with the statewide target for 2030, as mandated by SB 32 of 2016, or for the statewide target for 2050 as identified in Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15.
Guidance for evaluating the GHG emissions associated with a project is provided in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan. CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan suggests several approaches for showing a project’s consistency with state targets, including showing consistency with an adopted applicable GHG reduction plan or adopted threshold of significance. Absent these approaches, CARB also expresses that achieving no net additional increase in in GHG emissions is appropriate (CARB 2017:101-102).
The City of Sacramento has prepared a geographically-specific GHG reduction plan; however, because SMUD’s proposed HQCMP has a 20-year planning horizon, the City’s GHG reduction plan may not be applicable to the targets set forth by SB 32 and therefore will not be used in this EIR to demonstrate consistency with future target years (i.e., 2030 or 2050). Further, neither SMAQMD nor the SMUD have developed an evidenced-based bright-line numeric threshold or performance-based metric based on an applicable GHG reduction plan consistent with the State’s long-term GHG goals. Therefore, relying on consistency with a qualified GHG reduction plan or comparing project-generated emissions to a bright-line threshold are not currently options for this project analysis.
Based on the overall objective of the proposed 2017 Scoping Plan, a “no-net-increase” in GHG emissions over existing conditions threshold is applied for the purposes of the GHG impact analysis for the HQCMP. A no-net increase in GHG emissions considers the existing condition (i.e., without the project) and then considers any level of GHG emissions increase over this baseline as a significant increase for CEQA purposes. GHG emissions are typically discussed in terms of annual emissions so that emissions can be attributed to the operational life of a project. If a portion of a project’s emissions are covered through other applicable state or local regulations or GHG reduction plans (e.g., cap-and-trade, sustainable community strategy), they would be considered an increase in emissions but
Page 3.6-18 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
would not be considered significant as they would be adequately accounted for by these aforementioned policies or plans.
The intent of this analysis is not to present the use of a no-net-increase threshold as a generally applied threshold of significance for GHG impacts. Its use herein is related directly to the facts surrounding the HQCMP, which has an approximate 20-year planning horizon. For these reasons and the fact that other defensible thresholds have not been established, a no-net-increase threshold is considered the appropriate criterion for analyzing GHG emissions in this EIR. A project that results in no net increase in GHG emissions would not result in a substantial increase in GHGs or conflict with local or State plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
Energy The following significance criteria area based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix F (energy), under which implementation of the project would have a potentially significant adverse impact if the project would:
• result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, during project construction or operation, as evidenced by a failure to decrease overall per capita energy consumption or decrease reliance on fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil; or
• exceed the available capacities of energy supplies that require the construction of facilities.
Analysis Methodology
Energy use and subsequent GHG emissions associated with implementation of the project would be generated during the demolition of existing facilities and construction of new facilities, as well as from activities associated with the operation of new or expanded facilities. Construction-related emissions of GHGs were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2016.3.2 computer program (CAPCOA 2016), in accordance with recommendations by SMAQMD. Modeling was based on project-specific information (e.g., size, number of units being built, area to be graded, area to be paved, energy information), where available; reasonable assumptions based on typical construction activities; and default values in CalEEMod that are based on the project’s location and land use type.
Major construction activity anticipated to occur as a result of project implementation includes the demolition of two buildings on the existing campus, construction of five new buildings (i.e., Community Energy/Innovation Center, Learning Center, Warehouse, Auxiliary Building, and Flex Space), and additions and renovations to existing buildings over a 20-year timeframe. Considering the available space for construction activity to occur on the project site, it is assumed a maximum of 50,000 square feet (sf) of new building construction and one acre of paving would occur annually. Based on anticipated development of the HCQMP, it is unlikely that more than one building would be
Page 3.6-19 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
constructed at any one time. However, demolition of existing structures may occur during the initial development phases when new buildings replace existing. Thus, construction estimates assumed that demolition and construction could overlap in the first 10 years. Construction activity is assumed to begin as early as 2019 with full implementation of the project to be completed over a 20-year timeframe. For a detailed description of model input and output parameters, and assumptions, refer to Appendix C.
Operational GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.1. Project- related operational emissions were estimated for the following sources: area sources (e.g., landscaping-related fuel combustion sources), energy use (i.e., electricity and natural gas consumption), water use, solid waste, and mobile sources. Operational mobile-source emissions were modeled based on the estimated annual VMT resulting from project implementation.
Operational modeling conducted for this project accounts for the development activities which would occur as a result of project implementation which includes the construction of five new buildings (Community Energy/Innovation Center, Learning Center, Warehouse, Auxiliary Building, and Flex Space), the demolition of two existing buildings (Childcare Center and Auxiliary Building). This would result in 105,400 sf of existing facilities on the project site being demolished and replaced with new office space.
Some existing buildings would be replaced with new building that would comply with the current building code, which is much more stringent compared to codes in place when these building were constructed (i.e., 1980s and 1990s). Thus, improvements related to new building construction were modeled by estimated existing energy use and related emissions from a 2002 energy use survey (CEC 2006). GHG emission reduction associated with improved efficiency of existing buildings were credited to the overall project-generated GHG emissions.
Operational mobile-source GHG emissions were modeled based on the estimated annual VMT resulting from project implementation; VMT was calculated by the project traffic consultant (Fehr & Peers 2017). Project-specific VMT estimates were available in the traffic impact analysis conducted for the project (see Section 3.10, “Transportation and Circulation”). The project’s level of electricity and natural gas usage were based on 2016 Title 24-adjusted consumption rates provided by CalEEMod for each land use type. Adjustments were based on the CEC’s estimate that non-residential buildings are 5 percent more efficient than 2013 Title 24 standards (CEC 2015). Additionally, for buildings to be constructed as part project implementation, it was assumed (based on SMUD plans) that all new buildings would obtain a Green Building Council’s Leadership Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating of at a minimum gold with a goal of platinum. Although the LEED certification of these new buildings would result in potential energy reductions, LEED certification can be achieved from a wide variety of included design measures that would not result in energy reductions such as the use of recycled materials or protection of habitat on a project site. Therefore, no additional energy reductions beyond the 2016 Title 24 adjustment were made in the modeling for this project. In consideration of the 20-year timeframe of the project, it was also assumed that the goal
Page 3.6-20 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
set forth in SB 350 (see Regulatory Settings for full discussion) of reaching an RPS standard of 50 percent renewable resources by 2030 would be reached by 2030 before full project buildout occurs in 2040.
Table 3.6-2 summarizes the project-related activities for which emissions were estimated; the model, protocol, and source of emission factors used; and the key input parameters on which each activity’s emissions were determined. Emissions were estimated for both construction- and operation-related emissions. Operational emissions include those stationary-source emissions generated by the power plant and support emissions, which refer to emissions from those activities that directly support operation of the power plant and would not otherwise occur.
Table 3.6-2 Methodologies Used to Estimate Project-Related Emissions Model/Protocol/ Category and Source Key Input Parameter(s) Source of Emission Factors Construction Emissions Demolition CalEEMod Version 2016.3 Total sf of Demolition Building Construction CalEEMod Version 2016.3 Total sf of Construction Operational Emissions All Emissions Sources (except Energy Land Use, Size, Daily VMT, CalEEMod Version 2016.3 Use) Energy Use Percent energy use reduction Energy Use reduction for Replaced Reduction estimate provided by from Title 24 Building Code Buildings CEC Studies Updates SMUD Electricity Generation Climate Action Registry: Electric Percent Renewables and Emissions Factor (Existing and Power Sector Report (2016), CEC Emission Factor Future) 2016 SMUD Power Content Label Notes: VMT = vehicle miles travelled, sf = square feet, CEC = California Energy Commission Models: CalEEMod Version 2016.3 Source: Methodologies researched and identified by Ascent Environmental in 2017.
Design Considerations of the Proposed Headquarter Campus Master Plan The draft HQCMP includes a series of policies and design features that would serve to reduce GHG emissions associated with campus operations. The majority of these features included in the HQCMP are within Section 5.5 “Sustainable Architecture Strategies” of the plan and are considered part of the project, including:
• Daylighting: Designing and orienting new buildings to utilize natural lighting will help reduce lighting energy use and heating demands needed for the building as well as saving operational costs for new buildings.
• Natural Ventilation: Designing and orienting new buildings to use natural ventilation will help reduce heating and cooling-related energy use and costs associated with building operations.
Page 3.6-21 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• High Performance Building Envelope: A high performance building envelope will help improve the energy efficiency of the heating and cooling systems within building, helping to reduce operational energy use and cost.
• Adaptive Comfort: The inclusions of adaptive comfort planning into building climate control systems will help reduce energy use through adaptive heating and cooling use based not on preset temperature but rather the varying comfort needs of building occupants.
• Plug Load Reduction: Plug load reduction strategies would help reduce building energy use through reductions in plug-load energy loss which occurs regardless of whether equipment (i.e. computers) are in use or not.
• Heat Pumps: Heat pumps capture naturally occurring heat in the air or ground and use this energy to heat or cool buildings, which is often more efficient than generating heat.
• Chilled Beams: Chilled beams are a type of HVAC system which utilizes the principles of heat transfer using water, to heat or cool building through large pipes, “chilled beams,” suspended in rooms within a building.
• High Volume Low-Speed Fans: The fans use aerodynamic, extruded aluminum airfoils designed to provide the optimum airflow at the lowest possible operating cost.
• PV Solar Arrays: Photovoltaic (PV) panels are a simple, low-maintenance method for producing on-site renewable energy and reducing GHG emissions associated with energy use.
• Solar Thermal: Solar thermal system work by absorbing natural thermal radiation through liquids and transferring this heat to supplement a buildings water heating requirement.
• Fuel Cells: Fuel cell uses the chemical energy of hydrogen or another fuel to cleanly and efficiently produce electricity and can be used emergency power generation rather than conventional emergency diesel generators.
• Building Automation: Building automation systems can help reduce a buildings energy use by scanning and rebalancing energy demand 9lighting and heating) in a building only where it is need by building occupants rather than supplying energy to the entire building.
• Water Conservation and Re-use: Water conservation and re-use strategies can help buildings reduce water-related energy demand and conserve water resources.
• EV Charging Stations: The SMUD headquarters already includes many EV charging stations for SMUD employees and the public. The HQCMP would include new EV
Page 3.6-22 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
charging stations relative to SMUD’s EV adoption growth forecast for fleet and employee vehicles.
Issues or Potential Impacts Not Discussed Further
All issues applicable to GHG emissions and energy listed under the significance criteria above are addressed in this chapter.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.6-1: Greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation.
Construction activity associated with development of new facilities under the HQCMP would generate approximately 651 MT CO2e. At full buildout, implementation of the HQCMP would result in an increase in operational emissions of approximately 2,442 MT CO2e/year. These levels of GHG emissions have the potential to result in a considerable contribution to cumulative emissions related to global climate change and conflict with state GHG reduction targets. The contribution of the HQCMP to this cumulative impact would be considerable. This impact would be significant.
GHG emissions associated with the project would be generated during construction and operation. Project-related construction activities would result in the generation of GHG emissions from the use of heavy-duty off-road construction equipment, delivery trucks associated with materials transport, and vehicle use during worker commute.
Project implementation would result in the demolition of two existing buildings on the project site (i.e., Childcare Center and Auxiliary Building). The Auxiliary Building would be demolished and relocated to a new location on the project site. Construction activity was modeled for the demolition of these three buildings which, combined, would result in the demolition of 105,400 sf of existing office and related space.
Project implementation would also result in the construction of four other new buildings (Community Energy/Innovation Center, Learning Center, Warehouse, Flex Space) on the project site over the 20-year timeframe of the project. Upon completion of the Community Energy/Innovation Center and the relocation of customer service functions from the Customer Service Center to the Community Energy/Innovation Center, the Customer Service Center would be rebranded as the SMUD Corporate Center and an additional 20,000 sf of office space would be added to the SMUD Corporate Center. As noted in the Analysis Methodology section, given the space constraints of the project site, a maximum of 50,000 sf of construction activity would take place in any one year. Additionally, new parking space and other paved surfaces are anticipated as part project implementation, with a maximum of one acre of paving activity occurring in any one year. Based on information included in the HQCMP, a total of 260 new parking spaces were assumed to be constructed for the 130,000 sf of flex space. This estimate is based on the City of Sacramento Zoning Code requirement of one space for every 500 sf of office uses.
Page 3.6-23 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Operational GHG emissions would result from increases in employment of approximately 835 employees and associated vehicular emissions, and additional building energy required for the new and expanded facilities. In consideration of the 20-year planning timeline, operational emissions were modeled for the year 2040, when full buildout of the project is anticipated. Modeling results are shown below in Table 3.6-3.
Table 3.6-3 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Proposed HQCMP at Full Buildout1
Emissions Activity CO2e (MT) Construction Emissions
Construction Activity 601 Demolition Activity 32 Central Plant Redevelopment Activity 72 Total Construction Emissions 705
Operational Emissions (New Buildings and Replaced Buildings) CO2e (MT/yr) Area 0.01 Energy 526 Vehicle Trips 1,618 Solid waste generation 137 Water consumption and wastewater generation 85 Credited GHG Reductions from Replaced Buildings 192 Operational Total 2,365 Amortized Construction Emissions (25 Years) 28 Total Project Emissions (operation + construction) 2,393 Total Project Net GHG Emissions (total project emission – credit from 2,201 replaced buildings)
Notes: CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; MT/year = metric tons per year Methodologies for estimating emissions from each activity are summarized in Table 3.6-2. Refer to Appendix C for a detailed summary of the modeling assumptions, inputs, and outputs. Values may not sum exactly to total due to rounding. Source: Modeling performed by Ascent Environmental in 2018
As shown in Table 3.6-3, total construction activity would result in 705 MT CO2e. In accordance with SMAQMD guidance, total construction emissions can be amortized over a 25-year period and added to estimated operational emissions to establish total annual GHG emissions. Amortized construction emissions associated with project implementation would be 28 MT CO2e/yr, and total project emissions would be 2,201 MT CO2e/year, of which emissions from the mobile-sector (i.e., employee commute) would contribute 1,640 MT CO2e/yr (approximately two-thirds of total HQCMP-related emissions).
Section 5.5, “Sustainable Architectural Strategies” of the SMUD HQCMP includes a series of design features that serve to reduce energy use for new. These features include the consideration of building orientation and daylighting to provide increased natural
Page 3.6-24 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 lighting and heating for the building, the use of natural ventilation to reduce energy use associated with climate control, the use of solar PV arrays and solar thermal collectors for energy use, building automation as it relates to reducing energy use, water conservation and re-use, and the inclusion of energy efficient heating and cooling equipment. All of these features, if implemented, would contribute to energy reduction and associated GHG emissions for new buildings on the project site. (See Regulatory Settings for detailed list of design features included in the HQCMP that would result in GHG reductions.) Due to uncertainty in the timing of the construction of these new buildings as well as what design features would be included in each new building, these strategies were not included in the emissions modeling. As shown in Table 3.6-3 above, GHG emissions associated with replacing existing buildings would result in some reduction because of improved building codes alone. Additional on-site and specific technology chosen during the design phase of future buildings, could result in further GHG reductions over existing conditions.
The project would construct additional office buildings and support facilities for SMUD operations, resulting in an increase in building-related energy use, and associated GHG emissions, as well as an increase in employees resulting in vehicular exhaust GHG emissions. As an energy utility operating in California, SMUD is currently subject to the Cap-and-Trade program, one of the primary strategies in place to “cap” GHG emissions related to the energy and refinery sector in the State, and help California meet long-term GHG reduction goals. As an entity covered by Cap-and-Trade all stationary source GHG emission generated by SMUD are subject to the requirements of the program which includes a declining cap for the entire sector. In effect, stationary source emissions generated by this sector associated with the covered entities covered, are already accounted for and being mitigated for, thus not conflicted with long-term state GHG reduction targets. For this reason, only the net increase in emissions associated with construction (i.e., 28 MT CO2e/year) and annual mobile-source emissions (i.e., 1,618 MT CO2e/year) are the focus of this analysis, resulting in a total, annual net increase of 1,646 MT CO2e/year.
The HQCMP includes several transportation features that could also potentially reduce GHG emissions associated with project implementation. These include the development of additional EV charging stations for current and future SMUD employees and visitors and inclusion of bicycle parking for SMUD employees and visitors. SMUD currently provides an employee commute program to encourage SMUD employees to use alternative forms of transportation such as biking, transit and carpooling for their commute trips.
The City of Sacramento General Plan includes policies designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in the city. Many of these policies are focused on reducing vehicle trips and increasing active transportation mode within the city. Proposed policies and design guidelines included in the SMUD HQCMP, as discussed above, would be consistent with City of Sacramento General Plan policies pertaining to GHG reduction. Nonetheless, the project would result in the addition of 1,646 MT CO2e/year and this impact would be significant.
Page 3.6-25 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1a: GHG reduction commitment. SMUD shall incorporate a combination of on-site and, if necessary off-site, GHG reduction measures to compensate the project’s GHG emissions by a total of 1,646 MT CO2e/year, thus resulting in no net increase in GHG emissions over conditions existing without the proposed project. SMUD shall designate a qualified energy professional to prepare a GHG reduction plan to track and ensure that this performance standard is met. Continued improvements of on-site equipment and reductions in GHG emissions from project design and equipment can be counted to meet this measure. For example, depending on specific equipment chosen to upgrade the central plant, GHG emissions savings may vary. When improvement plans are prepared, and specific technology is chosen, the GHG emissions savings shall be quantified and applied to meet this requirement.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1b: On-site GHG reduction measures. To reduce GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the proposed improvements associated with the SMUD HQCMP, the following on-site GHG reduction measures shall be incorporated into project design of each proposed structure, to the extent feasible:
Construction Phase GHG Reduction Measures • Use alternative fuels for generators at construction sites such as propane or solar, or use electrical power. To the extent feasible, all diesel-powered construction equipment shall be fueled with renewable diesel fuel. The renewable diesel fuel purchased for use in construction equipment must be compliant with CARB fuel pathways for renewable diesel (i.e., diesel sourced from 100 percent renewable sources).
• Implement a construction-worker carpool and transit program to encourage construction workers to carpool and use public transit to commute to and from the project site. The program shall include a virtual or real “ride board” for workers to organize car pools. The program shall also reimburse workers for any expenses they incur from using local public transit to commute to the construction site.
• Install a temporary electric power connection at the construction site to power any electric power equipment used during project construction (e.g., welders, lights) in lieu of any stationary generators powered by fossil fuels.
• Recycle or salvage non-hazardous construction and demolition debris (goal of at least 75 percent by weight) and use locally sourced or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at least 20 percent based on costs for building materials, and based on volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products utilized should be certified through a sustainable forestry program.
• Minimize the amount of concrete for paved surfaces, utilize permeable and/or cool paving surfaces or utilize a low carbon concrete option.
Page 3.6-26 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
On-site GHG Reduction Measures The project, as proposed, includes a series of measures that would reduce energy use and GHG emissions associated in new/reconstructed facilities that are part. Section 5.5, “Sustainable Architectural Strategies” of the HQCMP provides a series of design strategies to be considered for integration into new SMUD facilities on the headquarters campus. The following design measures would achieve GHG reductions above and beyond the strategies already set forth in the HQCMP and are framed in consideration of CEC energy policy goals of achieving Zero Net Energy for all new non-residential buildings built after 2030 (CEC 2014).
• adopt the CALGreen Tier 1 voluntary measures for nonresidential buildings (Appendix A5 of the California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11) that provide specific performance standards for each measure; and
• design new buildings to meet a Zero Net Energy or Zero Net Carbon standard.
The following design measures could be implemented to support the above measures and achieve further GHG reductions during project implementation.
• minimize on-site parking availability;
• implement an employee commute VMT reduction target of 15 percent or more over current employee VMT;
• overall increase in on-site renewable energy sources;
• ensure that all appliances and fixtures installed in buildings developed or redeveloped as part of the project are Energy Star®–certified if an Energy Star®–certified model of the appliance is available. Types of Energy Star®–certified appliances include boilers, ceiling fans, central and room air conditioners, clothes washers, compact fluorescent light bulbs, computer monitors, copiers, consumer electronics, dehumidifiers, dishwashers, external power adapters, furnaces, geothermal heat pumps, programmable thermostats, refrigerators and freezers, residential light fixtures, room air cleaners, transformers, televisions, vending machines, ventilating fans, and windows (EPA 2017b);
• install electric tankless, rooftop solar water heating system(s), or other more efficient alternatives to traditional natural gas heating systems;
• consider setting a zero waste-to-landfill goal for SMUD operations, which may include a composting program and reuse/recycling measures;
• to reduce indoor water use by installing low-flow plumping fixtures;
Page 3.6-27 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• reduce outdoor water use by reducing turf area and use water-efficient irrigation systems (i.e., smart sprinkler meters) and landscaping techniques/design, installing rain water capture systems;
• if feasible, install a grey water system to irrigate outdoor landscaping and/or to use for indoor non-potable water uses;
• Use drought tolerant plants in landscaped areas, where feasible (does not apply to orchard area); and
• incorporate site design features to reduce on-site heat island effect including wall shading.
Mitigation Measure 3.6-1c: Off-site GHG reduction commitment. If after incorporation of all feasible on-site GHG reduction measures, project GHG emissions are not reduced to zero, SMUD shall purchase carbon credits to offset the level of project-related GHG emissions remaining after implementation of the feasible on-site measures identified above. The GHG plan shall include calculation of carbon credits that SMUD shall purchase from The Climate Registry or a CARB-approved offset project to reduce net project-related GHG emissions. This measure is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(c)(3), which states that measures to mitigate the significant effects of GHG emissions may include “off-site measures, including offsets that are not otherwise required…”
The quantity of carbon credits purchased by SMUD to offset the project’s operational GHG emissions shall be estimated based on annual mass of GHG emissions, less the reductions achieved by implementation of on-site operational GHG emission reduction measures described above, multiplied by an operational life of 25 years. The GHG reduction plan shall demonstrate the quantified reductions in operational GHG emissions achieved by implementation of these measures.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.6-1a, 3.6-1b, and 3.6-1c would require implementation of a series of GHG reduction and compensation measures included in a GHG-reduction plan that would reduce net project-related GHG emissions to applicable threshold limits. More specifically, Mitigation Measure 3.6-1a commits SMUD to reduce GHG emissions by 1,646 MT CO2e/yr, and Mitigation Measure 3.6-1b. provides numerous on-site measures that would reduce GHG emissions during construction and operation of the project. Incorporation of high performance renewable diesel alone would reduce all diesel-exhaust generated GHG emissions or 28 MT CO2e/yr. Any remaining net increase in GHG emissions would be reduced to zero through the purchase of offsets. Therefore, the project would not generate GHG emissions that conflict with the 2017 Scoping Plan and the established statewide GHG reduction targets it is designed to achieve. As a result, the HQCMP’s GHG emissions would be reduced to a less-than- significant level.
Page 3.6-28 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Impact 3.6-2: Impacts of climate change on the project.
The project site will experience the impacts of climate change over the next century, with the most relevant impacts being increased average temperatures, increased variability of precipitation patterns and locations, and impacts of snowmelt on available drinking water supplies. SMUDs HQCMP includes a series of policies and design guidelines that would serve to address the short and long-term effects of climate change on the project site. Although there is some uncertainty regarding the specific effects of climate change on the project site, the HQCMP policies and site design features included in the HQCMP are anticipated to be able to mitigate these effects and reduce overall risk from the effects of climate change on the project site. SMUD maintains a Climate Readiness Assessment and Action Plan which will be updated during the completion of the HQCMP and address any newly identified risks. Therefore, the impacts of climate change on the project would be less than significant.
As discussed previously in this section, there is substantial evidence that human-induced increases in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere have led, through the intensification of the greenhouse effect, to increased global average temperatures (climate change) and associated changes in local, regional, and global average climatic conditions.
Although there is strong scientific consensus that global climate change is occurring, there is less certainty as to the timing, severity, and potential consequences of the climate phenomena, particularly at specific locations. Scientists have identified several ways in which global climate change could alter the physical environment in California (CNRA 2012; IPCC 2014). These include:
• increased average temperatures, • modifications to the timing, amount, and form (rain vs. snow) of precipitation, • changes in timing and amount of runoff, • reduced water supply, • deterioration of water quality, and • elevated sea level.
Considering that the project site is located within an urban area, several of the impacts mentioned above would not be as applicable to this project. The most pertinent climate change impacts to the specific project location would be:
• increased average temperatures;
• unreliability in water supply associated with changes to precipitation and snowmelt patterns; and
• modifications to the timing, amount, and form (rain vs. snow) of precipitation.
Page 3.6-29 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Annual average temperatures in Sacramento County are projected to increase steadily over the next 90 years, based on the best available climate change projections for the region included in the web-based tool Cal-Adapt. Cal-Adapt is a planning tool developed by the CEC to evaluate climate change impacts, consistent with emissions scenarios identified in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC 2014). The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report uses future emissions scenarios known as Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) to estimate scenarios in which varying (higher or lower) levels of GHGs would be emitted in the future. Emissions scenarios used in the tool are based on the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios. According to Cal-Adapt, the portion of City in which the project is projected to experience a temperature increase of 4.2°F by 2050 and 5.6°F by 2099 under the RCP 4.5 scenario and an increase of 5.3°F by 2050 and 8.4°F by 2099 under the RCP 8.5 scenario.
Increased temperature is expected to lead to secondary climate change impacts, including increases in the frequency, intensity, and duration of extreme heat days and multiday heat waves/events in California. Cal-Adapt defines an extreme heat day as one during which the temperature reaches 104.5°F. The location of the project is anticipated to see an increase in extreme heat days over the next century by approximately 18 days per year in 2050 and 24 days per year at the end of the century. Under the RCP 8.5 scenario, Cal-Adapt predicts that project location will experience 22 extreme heat days per year in 2050 and 40 extreme heat days per year by 2099 (Cal-Adapt 2017). As discussed above in “Environmental Setting,” the impacts of extreme heat and average temperature increases caused by climate change could cause harm to human populations within or near the project site. Impacts of temperature increases on humans can include increased rates of heat stroke and dehydration and increased rates of asthma. These impacts are particularly felt in vulnerable populations including children and the elderly.
Section 5.2, “Guiding Principles,” of the HQCMP includes policy language to ensure that new development as part of the project would “Utilize high quality, durable, compatible materials and finishes to maintain a premium appearance, long life and minimize ongoing maintenance.” While these policies would help mitigate the effects of climate change on the project and long-term operations of the SMUD headquarters campus, the specific long- term effects of climate change on the project site cannot be projected at this time. Further, the HQCMP includes a series of design features regarding climate control systems that would serve to mitigate the potential climate impacts associated with climate change. New buildings would meet the 2016 Title 24 building energy standards and would include numerous other building design elements such as plug load reduction strategies, high performance building envelops, adaptive comfort, advanced technology for cooling and ventilation systems, well-insulated buildings, which would serve to better mitigate against extreme heat as a result of climate change. Further, the HQCMP includes landscaping design features, namely new tree plantings, shading elements, and design guidelines to reduce heat island effect on the campus and promote outdoor use by designing spaces that shade from the elements as well as provide comfortable usable space.
Page 3.6-30 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The City of Sacramento’s is the current water purveyor for the project site. Changes to precipitation and snowmelt patterns could cause variability in the City’s available water supply over long-term operational lifetime of the Project. The City’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan evaluates the City’s existing water supply and analyzes future water demand based on service population projections for the City through the year 2045. The City currently receives its water supply from a combination of surface water and groundwater sources as well as recycled water supplies and storm water capture supplies. Based on current water supply resources and projected water demand for the year 2040, the City has projected a water supply approximately 294,419 acre feet (AF) and a projected water demand of 162,029 AF per year, resulting in a surplus of 132,390 AF. It should be noted that, these estimates are based on the City’s current water entitlements for surface and groundwater diversion and do not include projections for the potential impacts of climate change on future of water supplies for the City. Based on calculations included in SMUD’s HQCMP, projected average daily water demand for the Headquarters Campus would be 50,875 gallons per day or 0.15 AF per day, an approximate 18 percent increase in water demand from existing conditions. As seen above, this increase in water demand for the project is lower than the anticipated 294,419 AF per year water supply projected to be available to the City for 2040 (City of Sacramento 2016). In addition, as a part of SMUD’s landscape plan, drought tolerant, native species, and xeriscaping would all be included in the site design.
Based on Cal-Adapt’s Annual Averages tool, historical annual mean precipitation in the project region, identified as the Integrated Regional Water Management Region for the purpose of this analysis, is 20.1 inches per year. Under the lower emissions scenario (RCP 4.5), annual mean precipitation is projected be 22.2 inches per year by 2050 and 22.1 inches per year by the end of the century. Under the RCP 8.5 scenario, annual mean precipitation is projected be 22.3 inches per year by 2050 and 24.1 inches per by the end of the century. These projections indicate that precipitation rates within the region will slightly increase over the century and would not adversely affect water demand requirements for the project site. Additionally, SMUD’s proposed HQCMP includes a series of design features to remain resilient to the impacts of climate change in regard to water supply through guidelines for water conservation and re-use including high- efficiency water fixtures, waterless urinals, and the potential inclusion of storm water and gray water recycling systems integrated into the project design.
As discussed above, increases in precipitation rates are projected to occur in on the project site over the century and have the potential to affect certain aspects of the project, mostly related to storm water management and flood control on the project site. The SMUD HQCMP includes a series of design features to address storm water management on the campus including integration of landscaping and other features that assist in storm water management. These design features include the use of bio-swales for storm water collection and management of localized flooding.
As discussed above, the project includes a series of design features that will assist in mitigating the anticipated effects of climate change on the project location and the surrounding region. The various sustainability elements incorporated in the HQCMP will
Page 3.6-31 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
serve to guide the development of the project site overtime, helping to consider and address all relevant climate change impacts during project implementation. Due to these policies and design features included in the HQCMP as well as the above-mentioned factors regarding water supply, the effects of climate change on the project would be mitigated. Therefore, this impact in considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact 3.6-3: Wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.
Project implementation would result in energy consumption associated with the use of heavy-duty construction equipment during construction phases of the project. Project implementation would also result in energy use during the operational phase of the project including natural gas and electricity consumption for building operations and transportation fuel use for commute trips from new SMUD employees to and from the project site. The SMUD HQCMP includes a series of design features, discussed in detail in the Regulatory Setting section that would serve to reduce overall energy use in the new buildings constructed or redeveloped as part of project implementation. Energy use, as a result of project implementation, would be considered a necessary part of operational activities on the project site and would not be considered a wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Project implementation would result in the use of transportation fuels (diesel and gasoline) during the construction phase of project implementation. The use of heavy-duty construction equipment, vehicle trips for materials transport, and worker commute trips to and from the project site would all result in energy consumption. Energy estimates are shown below in Table 3.6-4. See Appendix C for further detail.
Table 3.6-4 Project-Generated Fuel Consumption Construction Activities Diesel Fuel Use (Gal.) Gasoline Fuel Use (Gal.) Demolition Construction Equipment 2,125 - Vendor and Worker Trips 838 100 Central Plant Redevelopment Construction Equipment 7,595 Vendor and Worker Trips 33 35 Construction Construction 33,446 - Vendor and Worker Trips 16,602 13,110 Project Total 60,639 13,245 Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Gal. = Gallons Source: Modeling performed by Ascent Environmental in 2018
Page 3.6-32 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
As shown in Table 3.6-4, project implementation would result in the consumption of a total of 60,639 gallons of diesel fuel and 13,245 gallons of gasoline. Construction fuel usage varies depending on the particular construction activity length and type of equipment being used for various stages of construction (i.e. demolition, grading). As discussed in the Analysis Methodology section, construction activity is anticipated to take place over the 25-year timeframe of the project with an estimated 50,000 sf of new building construction to occur in any single year. Therefore, construction-related fuel use would take place only during periods of construction over the 25-year timeframe of the project.
Project implementation would result in the electricity usage for building and campus operations, natural gas usage for building climate control and hot water heating purposes, and transportation fuel consumption from commute trips taken by new SMUD employees. As seen in Table 3.6-5, project implementation would result in the use of 2,385,116 thousand British thermal units per year in natural gas usage, 1,338,810 kilowatt hours per year of electricity usage and result in the consumption of 145,497 gallons per year of gasoline and 1,042 gallons per year of diesel fuel by 2040. Energy usage from these various sources, as a result of project implementation, would be considered necessary for operational activities for new and existing buildings on the project site and would not be considered a wasteful or inefficient use of energy.
Table 3.6-5 Project-Generated Operational Energy Use Operation Activities Building Energy Use Unit Amount Natural Gas kBTU/yr 2,385,116 Electricity kWh/yr 1,338,810 Worker Commute Trips (Gasoline) gal/yr 145,497 Worker Commute Trips (Diesel) gal/yr 11,042 Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding. Gal/yr = gallons per year; kBTU/yr = thousand British thermal units per year; kWh/yr = kilowatt hours per year Source: Modeling performed by Ascent Environmental in 2018
Project implementation entails the development of new on-site structures and additions to one existing building on the project site. As discussed previously, the HQCMP includes a series of design features intended to reduce energy use associated with the new buildings to be developed as part of project implementation. Additionally, Mitigation Measures 3.6- 1a, 3.6-1b, and 3.6-1c would serve to reduce GHG emissions and subsequently reduce energy use associated with the project as well as fossil fuel consumption. In consideration of the above-mentioned reasons, project implementation would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy and this impact would be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Page 3.6-33 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Impact 3.6-4: Demand for energy services and facilities.
Project implementation would result in energy use associated with operation of the project site as well as transportation energy use for commute trips from new SMUD employees to and from the project site. The project site is located within an existing urban area with both natural gas and electricity infrastructure in place. Project implementation would result in increased energy use although this increase in energy use would not require new energy services and facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Project implementation would result in energy use associated with construction activities over the 20-year plan horizon of the HQCMP, with the majority this energy use in the form of transportation fuel for construction activities involving heavy-duty construction equipment. Implementation of the HQCMP would also result in energy use associated with the SMUD’s operational activities at the Headquarters Campus, including the use of natural gas for climate control and hot water heating purposes, the use of electricity for operational functions in SMUD offices and facilities on the project site, and the use of transportation fuels for new SMUD employee commute trips.
The project site is located within an established urban area in the City of Sacramento and includes existing infrastructure for natural gas and electricity distribution which service the existing SMUD headquarters campus. Additionally, project implementation consists of a master plan update to SMUD’s existing Headquarters Campus which is currently in operation. Project implementation would result in the development of new on-site structures, as well as retrofits and additions to existing campus facilities. In consideration of the size and timeframe of project implementation, the addition of these buildings and facilities to the existing campus would take place within an established urban area with existing energy services and infrastructure and would be more efficient than the existing structures to be replaced. Therefore, it is anticipated that no new energy services or facilities would be required as a result of project implementation and this impact would be considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Page 3.6-34 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section describes the types of environmental hazards that would be associated with implementation of the SMUD HQCMP. Hazards evaluated include those associated with identified existing or suspected sites of contamination and potential exposure to hazardous materials used, stored, or transported during demolition and construction. Potential risks associated with toxic air contaminant emissions are discussed in Section 3.2, “Air Quality.” The information included in this section is based largely on the Characterization Report prepared for SMUD by Brown and Caldwell in 2015.
3.7.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Management of Hazardous Materials Various federal laws address the proper handling, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as requiring measures to prevent or mitigate injury to health or the environment if such materials are accidentally released. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the agency primarily responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable federal regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are primarily contained in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials, as defined in the Code, are listed in 49 CFR 172.101. Management of hazardous materials is governed by the following laws:
• The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 U.S. Code [USC] Section 2601 et seq.) regulates the manufacturing, inventory, and disposition of industrial chemicals, including hazardous materials. Section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act establishes standards for lead-based paint hazards in paint, dust, and soil.
• The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 USC 6901 et seq.) is the law under which EPA regulates hazardous waste from the time the waste is generated until its final disposal (“cradle to grave”).
• The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (also called the Superfund Act or CERCLA) (42 USC 9601 et seq.) gives EPA authority to seek out parties responsible for releases of hazardous substances and ensure their cooperation in site remediation.
• The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499; USC Title 42, Chapter 116), also known as SARA Title III or the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), imposes hazardous materials planning requirements to help protect local communities in the event of accidental release.
Page 3.7-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule includes requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. The rule requires specific facilities to prepare, amend, and implement SPCC Plans. The SPCC rule is part of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation, which also includes the Facility Response Plan rule.
Transport of Hazardous Materials The U.S. Department of Transportation regulates transport of hazardous materials between states and is responsible for protecting the public from dangers associated with such transport. The federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 USC 5101 et seq. (formerly the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act 49 USC 1801 et seq.) is the basic statute regulating transport of hazardous materials in the United States. Hazardous materials transport regulations are enforced by the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration.
Worker Safety The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the agency responsible for assuring worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals identified in the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-596, 9 USC 651 et seq.). OSHA has adopted numerous regulations pertaining to worker safety, contained in CFR Title 29. These regulations set standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including standards relating to the handling of hazardous materials and those required for excavation and trenching.
State
Management of Hazardous Materials In California, both federal and state community right-to-know laws are coordinated through the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The federal law, SARA Title III or EPCRA, described above, encourages and supports emergency planning efforts at the state and local levels and to provide local governments and the public with information about potential chemical hazards in their communities. Because of the community right- to-know laws, information is collected from facilities that handle (e.g., produce, use, store) hazardous materials above certain quantities. The provisions of EPCRA apply to four major categories:
• emergency planning, • emergency release notification, • reporting of hazardous chemical storage, and • inventory of toxic chemical releases.
Page 3.7-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The corresponding state law is Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory). Under this law, qualifying businesses are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which would include hazardous materials and hazardous waste management procedures and emergency response procedures, including emergency spill cleanup supplies and equipment. At such time as the applicant begins to use hazardous materials at levels that reach applicable state and/or federal thresholds, the plan is submitted to the administering agency.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), a division of the California Environmental Protection Agency, has primary regulatory responsibility over hazardous materials in California, working in conjunction with EPA to enforce and implement hazardous materials laws and regulations. As required by Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code, DTSC maintains a hazardous waste and substances site list for the State, known as the Cortese List. Individual regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs) are the lead agencies responsible for identifying, monitoring, and cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks (USTs). The Central Valley RWQCB has jurisdiction over the project site.
Transport of Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Plan The State of California has adopted U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for the movement of hazardous materials originating within the state and passing through the state; state regulations are contained in Title 26, California Code of Regulations (CCR). State agencies with primary responsibility for enforcing state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies are the California Highway Patrol and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Together, these agencies determine container types used and license hazardous waste haulers to transport hazardous waste on public roads.
California has developed an emergency response plan to coordinate emergency services provided by federal, state, and local governments and private agencies. Response to hazardous materials incidents is one part of the plan. The plan is managed by the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, which coordinates the responses of other agencies in the project area.
Management of Construction Activities Through the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, RWQCBs have the authority to require proper management of hazardous materials during project construction. The State Water Board adopted the statewide NPDES General Permit in August 1999. The state requires that projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction file a Notice of Intent with the RWQCB to be covered under this permit. Construction activities subject to the General Permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation. Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters. A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) must
Page 3.7-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
be developed and implemented for each site covered by the permit. The SWPPP must include best management plans (BMPs) designed to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and keep products of erosion from moving off‐site into receiving waters throughout the construction and life of the project; the BMPs must address source control and, if necessary, pollutant control.
Worker Safety The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) assumes primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations within the state. Cal/OSHA standards are typically more stringent than federal OSHA regulations and are presented in Title 8 of the CCR. Cal/OSHA conducts onsite evaluations and issues notices of violation to enforce necessary improvements to health and safety practices.
Title 8 of the CCR also includes regulations that provide for worker safety when blasting and explosives are utilized during construction activities. These regulations identify licensing, safety, storage, and transportation requirements related to the use of explosives in construction.
Local
Certified Unified Program Agency The California Environmental Protection Agency designates specific local agencies as Certified Unified Program Agencies. As the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) within Sacramento County, the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department is responsible for the implementation of six statewide programs within its jurisdiction. These programs include:
• underground storage of hazardous substances,
• hazardous materials business plan requirements,
• hazardous waste generator requirements,
• California Accidental Release Prevention program,
• Uniform Fire Code hazardous materials management plan, and
• aboveground storage tanks (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan only).
Implementation of these programs involves:
• permitting and inspection of regulated facilities,
Page 3.7-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• providing educational guidance and notice of changing requirements stipulated in State or Federal laws and regulations,
• investigations of complaints regarding spills or unauthorized releases, and
• administrative enforcement actions levied against facilities that have violated applicable laws and regulations.
Sacramento County Emergency Response Plan The County’s Basic Emergency Operations Plan serves as the principle guide for the County’s response to, and management of real or potential emergencies and disasters occurring within its jurisdiction. The plan provides a basic guide for coordinated response before, during, and after a disaster affecting the County.
City of Sacramento General Plan The following policies from the Public Health and Safety Element of the City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan are considered relevant to the analysis of potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the project.
• Policy PHS 3.1.1. The City shall ensure buildings and sites are investigated for the presence of hazardous materials and/or waste contamination before development for which City discretionary approval is required. The City shall ensure appropriate measures are taken to protect the health and safety of all possible users and adjacent properties.
• Policy PHS 3.1.2. The City shall require that property owners of known contaminated sites work with Sacramento County, the State, and/or Federal agencies to develop and implement a plan to investigate and manage sites that contain or have the potential to contain hazardous materials contamination that may present an adverse human health or environmental risk.
• Policy PHS 3.1.4. The City shall restrict transport of hazardous materials within Sacramento to designated routes.
• Policy PHS 3.1.5. The City shall strive to maintain existing clean industries in the city and discourage the expansion of businesses, with the exception health care and related medical facilities that require on-site treatment of hazardous industrial waste.
• Policy PHS 4.1.3. The City, in conjunction with other local, State, and Federal agencies, shall ensure operations readiness of the Emergency Operations Center, conduct annual training for staff, and maintain, test, and update equipment to meet current standards.
Page 3.7-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Policy PHS 4.1.4. The City shall coordinate with local and regional jurisdictions to conduct emergency and disaster preparedness exercises to test operational and emergency plans.
3.7.2 Environmental Setting
Definition of Terms
For purposes of this section, the term “hazardous materials” refers to both hazardous substances and hazardous wastes. A “hazardous material” is defined in the CFR as “a substance or material that … is capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce” (49 CFR 171.8). California Health and Safety Code Section 25501 defines a hazardous material as follows:
“Hazardous material” means any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. “Hazardous materials” include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.
“Hazardous wastes” are defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 25141(b) as wastes that:
… because of their quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, [may either] cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness [or] pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
Existing Buildings and Site Conditions
The project site includes the original historic Headquarters Building and landscape, associated parking areas, former Kramer property (previously Kramer Carton building), a childcare center, Auxiliary Building, Customer Service Center, Field Reporting Facility (FRF), Central Plant, and all associated accessory structures.
Former Kramer Property As discussed in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the former Kramer property is located within the project site, between the Headquarters Building and the childcare center. The former Kramer property was purchased by SMUD in 2016 and the former Kramer Carton building was demolished shortly thereafter. The property served as a paper box manufacturing and printing facility. Between the operational years of 1952 through 2009, the former Kramer property reportedly used both total petroleum hydrocarbon
Page 3.7-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
(TPH) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the printmaking process. Hazardous features associated with the former Kramer property include a 1,000-gallon Stoddard thinner UST, prepress area, chemical storage and maintenance facility, solvents wash tank, compressor, and 500-gallon kerosene UST.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted in 2008 by Brown and Caldwell and the following environmental conditions were observed:
• a 500-gallon kerosene UST;
• a 1,000-gallon Stoddard thinner UST;
• several occurrences of heavy staining, likely resulting from petroleum;
• a sand pile containing strong petroleum odor; and
• asbestos-containing materials, including sheet rock, plaster, linoleum, floor tile, roofing materials, and more.
A Phase II Site Investigation was conducted by Brown and Caldwell, also in 2008, involving the completion of soil vapor sampling and collection of groundwater samples. TPH and chlorinated VOCs were found, with the highest concentrations located along the southern edge of the property.
Additional site investigations took place through 2009 and 2013 at the former Kramer property. The results of the investigations indicated that soil vapor values for benzene, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE), cis-1,2-dichlorothene, and vinyl chloride were above commercial California Human Health Screening Levels published by the California Environmental Protection Agency. The highest concentrations of collected samples were found along the northern and eastern edge of the former Kramer property.
Employee Parking Lot The SMUD employee parking lot, and former hydrogen vehicle fueling facility, located between the former Kramer property and childcare center, was previously a laundry facility during the 1980s. Between 1985 and 1987 remedial action involved the removal of four petroleum USTs from the site. In 2006, SMUD discovered a fifth UST and removed it within the same year. Because the contaminant of concern for the USTs were petroleum-related, samples collected for the assessment were submitted only for analysis of TPH constituents.
Record Search for Hazardous Materials
A total of eight sites are listed in the leaking UST incident reports and are adjacent to the subject property. Leaking UST tank cases for seven of the eight sites have been
Page 3.7-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
completed and are considered closed. The eighth site (A-A Auto Services, located at 6101 Folsom Boulevard) is eligible for closure.
The State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB’s) GeoTracker Web site, which provides data relating to leaking USTs and other types of soil and groundwater contamination, along with associated cleanup activities, identified the following contaminated sites, adjacent to one another, and located along the contiguous property boundary:
• Open site assessments are being conducted at the former location of the Community Linen Rental Service facility (former linen facility), reportedly a steam laundry business. Currently, the parcel is a parking lot used by SMUD employees and is the location of SMUD’s former hydrogen vehicle fueling facility. PCE and TCE contaminants found at the former linen facility could potentially migrate onto the project site.
• An open site assessment at the former Kramer property for PCE and TCE is currently listed. The contaminants could potentially migrate onto the project site. Currently no cleanup action exists for this site.
These adjacent sites have been identified as recognized environmental conditions, which are defined as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on or at a property.
Asbestos
Asbestos, a naturally-occurring fibrous material, was used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before such uses were largely banned by the EPA in the 1970s. Because it was widely used prior to the discovery of its health effects, asbestos is found in a variety of building materials, including sprayed-on acoustic ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. Asbestos exposure is a human respiratory hazard when it becomes friable (easily crumbled) because inhalation of airborne fibers is the primary mode of asbestos entry into the body. Asbestos-related health problems include lung cancer and asbestosis. Asbestos-containing building materials are considered hazardous by Cal-OSHA when bulk samples contain more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight. These materials must be handled by a qualified contractor. Of the on-site structures, only the Headquarters Building was constructed prior to 1980 and is currently being remodeled as part of a separate project. Any asbestos-containing materials associated with the Headquarters Building are being removed as part of that effort. The FRF was also built prior to 1970 but was remodeled in 1996. No other on-site structures are of sufficient age that asbestos-containing materials are considered potentially present.
Page 3.7-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Lead
Lead can be found in old water pipes, solder, paint, and in soils around structures painted with lead-based paints. Lead accumulates in blood, soft tissues, and bones. Lead-based paints are likely present on the buildings constructed prior to the late 1970s, when the quantity of lead in paints became regulated. Potentially hazardous exposures to lead can occur when lead-based paint is improperly removed from surfaces by dry scraping, sanding, or open-flame burning. Lead-based paints and coatings used on the exterior of buildings may have also flaked or oxidized and deposited into the surrounding soils. Similar to the on-site potential for asbestos- containing materials within existing structures, the potential for lead (primarily lead- based paint) within on-site structures is considered low because of the age of the majority of on-site structures and recent remodeling of the two older structures (FRF and Headquarters Building).
Oil and Other Hazardous Materials
Approximately 490 gallons of diesel fuel are stored in the tank generator northeast of the Headquarters Building. No leaks or noticeable staining have been reported from the use of the generator.
Wildland Fire Risk
The project site is in an urbanized area of Sacramento that is not adjacent to wildlands, and is not located within a moderate or high fire hazard risk area (CalFire 2007).
Surrounding Land Uses
As noted in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the project site is located within a predominantly commercial/utility area (including a Caltrans yard and two shopping centers). U.S. Highway (US) 50 is located to the south of the project site, with residential (single- and multi-family) uses to the north, northeast, and across US 50 to the south.
Schools There are several education facilities in the vicinity of the project site. Phoebe Hearst Elementary School and Saint Mary’s School are both located within 0.25 mile of the project site (northwest across Folsom Boulevard). In addition, the existing childcare center is located within the project site.
Nearby Airport/Airstrip The project site is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan, nor is it located within 2 miles of a public airport or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The nearest airports surrounding the project site include the Sacramento International Airport, the California Highway Patrol Academy Airport, McClellan Airfield, Mather
Page 3.7-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Airport, and the Sacramento Executive Airport, all of which are located over approximately 4 miles from the project site.
3.7.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance/Significance Criteria
An impact related to hazardous materials and public health is considered significant if implementation of the HQCMP would do any of the following:
• create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
• create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;
• emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school;
• be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous-materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
• for a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
• for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area;
• impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; and
• expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
Analysis Methodology
The following reports and data sources document potential hazardous conditions at the project site and were reviewed for this analysis:
• materials provided by SMUD;
• applicable elements from the City of Sacramento General Plan, and Sacramento County General Plan;
Page 3.7-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• SWRCB’s Geotracker Database; and
• Characterization Report of the site, prepared by Brown and Caldwell (2015).
Project construction and operation were evaluated against the hazardous materials information gathered from these sources to determine whether any risks to public health and safety or other conflicts would occur.
Issues or Potential Impacts Not Discussed Further
Project Location within an Airport Land Use Plan or Vicinity of a Private or Public Airport/Airstrip As noted above, the project is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a public or private airport. Due to the distance between the project site and nearby airport/airstrip operations, additional safety risks associated with airport/airstrip operations would not occur as a result of HQCMP implementation. Impacts related to safety hazards within an airport land use plan, or vicinity of a public or private airstrip are not discussed further in this section.
Impair Implementation of or Physically Interfere with an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan Implementation of the project would not modify existing emergency routes or amend the Sacramento County Emergency Response Plan (Sacramento County 2012). Because the project would take place on existing SMUD property and does not propose expansion outside of the property boundary, the project would not result in changes to existing plans, routes, and emergency responses. No impacts related to impairment or interference of an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan would occur, and this issue is not discussed further in this section.
Expose People or Structures to Risk involving Wildfires As noted above, the project site is not located within a high or moderate fire hazard severity zone. Characteristics of the proposed project would involve modifications and development on an existing campus and would not expose people or structures to increased risks related to wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts related to risk, loss, or injury involving wildfires would occur, and this issue is not further discussed in this section.
Expose People or the Environment to Increased Risks Along the Existing Rail Corridor Development under the HQCMP would not increase the potential for train accidents. The existing SMUD undercrossing of the Sacramento Regional Transit (SacRT) light rail transit (LRT) line may be improved as part of plan implementation to increase safety for vehicles crossing underneath the LRT line, which would decrease the potential for accident conditions in or near the SacRT LRT track alignment. Further, development of the project site would not affect the alignment of the tracks in anyway and would not
Page 3.7-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
change sight lines or visibility. SMUD would continue to coordinate with SacRT regarding maintenance of existing fencing along the track alignment so as to prevent unauthorized crossings of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) line. As a result, development under the HQCMP would not increase potential risks associated with rail traffic along the UPRR line. Rather, it is anticipated that, by maintaining or improving access at the existing undercrossing, the potential risks associated with upset conditions along the SacRT LRT line near the project site would be reduced compared to existing conditions. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and this issue is not further discussed.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.7-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal of, or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material, including sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
Implementation of the HQCMP would result in ground-disturbing activities during redevelopment/improvement of the project site. Known contamination sites that have yet to be remediated are located within the Headquarters Campus. While SMUD would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations that would lessen the likelihood of hazardous material impacts to the public, development under the HQCMP could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials. For these reasons, impacts related to transport, use, disposal, and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials remains potentially significant.
Implementation of the project would result in the construction of several new buildings, replacement of existing structures, and redevelopment/modernization of existing spaces. Construction activities would likely involve the temporary storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials, such as asphalt, fuel, lubricants, and paint, during construction activities. Operation resulting from the project would also involve the use of small amounts of common hazardous materials, such as, cleaning solvents, fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.
For trucking of hazardous materials, including lead-contaminated building materials, SMUD and any construction contractors would be required to comply with federal and State hazardous materials transportation laws including CFR Title 49, Sections 100 to 185, and the California Environmental Protection Agency’s Unified Program. Any regulated activities would be managed by the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department, which is the designated CUPA and ensures compliance with environmental regulations. Compliance with these regulations and agencies would reduce any potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during construction or operation of projects under implementation of the plan.
Based on findings in the assessments and investigations previously discussed above, hazardous materials have been identified within the project site, notably within soils surrounding the former Kramer property and former linen property, near the employee
Page 3.7-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
parking area and childcare center. The case summary of the former Kramer Carton facility, provided by the SWRCB, indicates that site investigations found PCE and TCE contamination in soil vapor and underlying groundwater. The primary source of PCE was determined to come from a former UST, south of the SMUD property. The former Kramer property’s case opened on July 22, 2014 for a site assessment. As previously discussed, several site assessments have been conducted since then. As of July 18, 2016, the site remains open for remediation (SWRCB 2015a). As noted above, the former linen facility, currently the location of SMUD employee and public parking, contains source contaminants of PCE and TCE. The case was opened on September 4, 2012, and as of January 1, 2016, offsite groundwater investigations have occurred. A soil vapor extraction pilot test was conducted in July 2016 (SWRCB 2015b).
The former Kramer property is currently paved and capped. At this time, SMUD has not been able to locate the USTs or drums. Though the former Kramer property and former linen facility are open for remediation, hazardous materials are still present.
Because there are known environmental conditions (i.e., hazardous materials) present within the project site, and during construction, accident conditions involving the release of materials could occur, this impact is considered potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-1: Treatment/disposal of contaminated soils and materials. To reduce health hazards associated with potential exposure to hazardous substances, SMUD and/or its construction contractors shall implement the following measures before initiation of construction activities within 250 feet of the former Kramer Carton building and former linen facility:
• SMUD shall retain a licensed contractor to identify and remove any USTs and other equipment associated with historic uses at the former Kramer property and former linen facility. Such removal shall occur in accordance with Sacramento County Environmental Management Department and RWQCB regulations, including SWRCB regulations outlined in CCR Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16. These regulations establish separate monitoring requirements for existing USTs; establish uniform requirements for unauthorized release reporting and for repair, upgrade, and closure of USTs; and specify variance request procedures. The appropriate federal, state, and local agencies shall be notified if evidence of previously undiscovered soil or groundwater contamination (e.g., stained soil, odorous groundwater) is encountered during construction activities.
• SMUD shall retain a qualified environmental professional to conduct follow-up sampling to characterize the contamination and to identify any required remediation that shall be conducted consistent with applicable regulations. The environmental professional shall prepare a report that includes but is not limited to activities performed for the assessment, a summary of anticipated contaminants and contaminant concentrations at the project site, and recommendations for appropriate handling of any contaminated materials during construction. Any contaminated areas
Page 3.7-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
shall be remediated in accordance with recommendations made by the Sacramento County Environmental Management Department, Central Valley RWQCB, DTSC, or other appropriate federal, state, or local regulatory agencies.
• The former Kramer property and former linen facility shall not be redeveloped prior to discontinuation of operation of the childcare center.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.7-1 would require SMUD to conduct exploratory tests to locate potential hazardous materials at the former Kramer property, former linen facility, and vicinity prior to development as part of the HQCMP and ensure that any encountered hazardous materials, including contaminated soils, are appropriately removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations and the safety of the surrounding environment. Following implementation of mitigation, impacts would be less than significant. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to Phase 1 of the HQCMP would not be required for impacts to be less than significant because of the distance between potential Phase 1 components of the HQCMP and the former Kramer property.
Impact 3.7-2: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.
The project site is located within the vicinity of several existing schools. However, implementation of the HQCMP would not alter the use type or characteristics of on-site operations within 0.25 mile of existing or proposed schools such that potential hazardous emissions or materials could impact nearby schools. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with development near the former Kramer Carton building and former linen facility would be within 0.25 mile of an existing school. Impacts would be potentially significant.
As noted in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” implementation of the HQCMP would involve the redevelopment of existing on-site structures and redistribution of SMUD operations within the Headquarters Campus. While several schools are located relatively near the project site, operations and buildings associated with the project would be similar to existing structures at the Headquarters Campus. As a result, the project would not involve the operation of uses that would utilize hazardous or acutely hazardous materials beyond those normally associated with office development. For example, the space closest to the Phoebe A. Hearst Elementary and St. Francis High School, at the northern edge of the project site, would likely be used for additional office space for SMUD employees. Operation and use resulting from implementation of the project would be consistent with surrounding uses and would not result in hazardous emissions, materials, or substances within the vicinity of the existing schools.
Page 3.7-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
However, as noted above in Impact 3.7-1, construction activities near the former Kramer property and former linen facility could encounter and have the potential to result in accident conditions associated with USTs and contaminated soils. This area is located within 0.25 mile of Phoebe Hearst Elementary School, and as such, impacts to schools would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure 3.7-2: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-1. SMUD shall implement Mitigation Measure 3.7-1, which conduct a detailed site evaluation for any proposed development within 250 feet of the former Kramer Carton building and former linen facility and remediation of on-site soils, if required.
Significance after Mitigation As noted above, implementation of this mitigation measure would require SMUD to properly isolate, remediate, and remove any contaminated (i.e., hazardous) materials located at the former Kramer property and former linen facility. As a result, the potential risk of release of hazardous materials to nearby schools (existing and proposed) would be mitigated to less than significant. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to the implementation of Phase 1 of the HQCMP would not be required for impacts to be less than significant.
Page 3.7-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3.7-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section describes the existing hydrological setting for the Headquarters Campus, including runoff, storm drainage, flood control, and water quality. Regulations and guidelines established by federal, state, and local jurisdictions provide the regulatory background that guides the assessment of potential environmental effects to these resources. Refer to Section 3.11, “Utilities and Service Systems,” for an assessment of impacts to stormwater infrastructure.
3.8.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal statute governing the protection of water quality and was established to provide a comprehensive program to protect the nation’s surface waters. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency with primary authority for implementing regulations adopted pursuant to the CWA. The basis of the CWA is the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (Water Pollution Act) passed in 1948. The Water Pollution Act was substantially reorganized and expanded in subsequent amendments passed in 1972 and 1977, when “Clean Water Act” became its common name. The Water Pollution Act required EPA to establish nationwide effluent standards on an industry-by-industry basis. The 1972 amendment established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. As a result of the reauthorization of the CWA in 1987, Sections 402(p) through 405 were added. One of the results of the new sections was the creation of a framework for regulating discharges under the NPDES permit program, which is discussed later in this section.
Federal Emergency Management Agency In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising cost of taxpayer funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the NFIP to provide subsidized flood insurance to communities that comply with FEMA regulations to limit development in floodplains. FEMA also issues flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) that identify areas subject to flooding. These maps provide flood information and identify flood hazard zones. FEMA has established a minimum level of flood protection for new development as the 1-in-100 Annual Exceedance Probability (i.e., 100-year flood event). Participants in the NFIP must satisfy certain mandated floodplain management criteria.
Page 3.8-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 The Porter-Cologne Act of 1969 is California’s statutory authority for the protection of water quality. Under the Porter-Cologne Act, the state must adopt water quality policies, plans, and objectives that protect the state’s waters for the use and enjoyment of the people. The act sets forth the obligations of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) to adopt and periodically update basin plans. Water quality at the Headquarters Campus falls under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley RWQCB. Basin plans are the regional water quality control plans required by both the CWA and Porter-Cologne Act in which beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and implementation programs are established for each of the nine regions in California.
The Porter-Cologne Act also requires waste dischargers to notify the RWQCBs of their activities through the filing of reports of waste discharge and authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce waste discharge requirements, NPDES permits, or other approvals. The RWQCBs also have the authority to issue waivers to waste discharge requirements for broad categories of “low threat” discharge activities that have minimal potential for adverse water quality effects when implemented according to prescribed terms and conditions.
NPDES Permit System and Waste Discharge Requirements for Construction The 1972 amendment to the CWA established the NPDES permit program. The NPDES permit program outlined in the CWA contains effluent limitation guidelines, water quality requirements, and permit program requirements for discharges to waters of the United States. The 1987 amendment to the CWA established a framework for regulating discharges under the NPDES program. In 1990, EPA promulgated regulations for permitting stormwater discharges from industrial sites, including construction sites that disturb 5 acres or more, and from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving a population of 100,000 people or more. The November 16, 1990 regulations, known as the Phase I regulations (Title 55 [FR] 47990), rely on NPDES permit coverage to address stormwater runoff from operators of medium and large MS4s, construction activity disturbing 5 acres of land or greater, and 10 categories of industrial activity.
On December 8, 1999, EPA promulgated regulations known as Phase II. The regulations set forth in the Storm Water Phase II Final Rule (Volume 64 Federal Register 68722) require permit coverage for discharges from small municipalities, including nontraditional small MS4s, which are governmental facilities (such as military bases, public campuses, and prison and hospital complexes) and from construction sites disturbing at least 1 acre of land. Phase II is intended to further reduce adverse impacts on water quality in receiving waters and aquatic habitats by instituting controls on the unregulated sources of stormwater discharges that have the greatest likelihood of continued environmental degradation. The goal of the NPDES nonpoint source
Page 3.8-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
regulations is to improve the quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the “maximum extent practicable” through the use of best management practices (BMPs).
Construction projects disturbing at least 1 acre of land are covered under the General Construction Permit: SWRCB Water Quality Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002. Compliance with the NPDES General Construction Permit requires applicants to submit a notice of intent to the SWRCB and to prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP identifies BMPs that must be implemented to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality. The BMPs identified are directed at implementing both sediment and erosion control measures and other measures to control potential chemical contaminants. The permit also requires dischargers to consider the use of postconstruction permanent BMPs that will remain in service to protect water quality throughout the life of the project. All NPDES permits also have inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Local
Sacramento Region Stormwater Quality Design Manual The Sacramento MS4 permittees, which include Sacramento County and the cities of Sacramento, Folsom, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Galt, formed the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership and collaborated and published the Stormwater Quality Design Manual for the Sacramento and South Placer Regions in May 2007 to meet the regulatory requirements of their respective municipal stormwater NPDES permits. An updated version of this manual, the Sacramento Region Stormwater Quality Design Manual, was completed in May 2014. The manual provides locally adapted information for design and selection of stormwater quality control measures and now incorporates rates hydromodification management and low impact development design standards.
Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan The Central Sacramento County Groundwater Management Plan (CSCGMP) was completed in 2006 by Central Sacramento County Groundwater Basin stakeholders, in coordination with the Sacramento County Water Agency. The purpose of the CSCGMP is to establish a framework for maintaining a sustainable groundwater resource for the various users of the Sacramento County Groundwater Basin between the American and Cosumnes Rivers (SCWA et al. 2006:ES-1). The CSCGMP helps overlying water users to maintain a safe, sustainable, and high-quality groundwater resource within a given groundwater basin.
City of Sacramento Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan The City prepared a stormwater quality improvement plan in 2007 to reduce the pollution carried by stormwater into local creeks and rivers to the maximum extent practicable. The comprehensive plan includes pollution reduction activities for construction sites, industrial sites, illegal discharges and illicit connections, new development, and municipal operations. The program also includes an extensive public education effort,
Page 3.8-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
target pollutant reduction strategy, and monitoring program. The stormwater quality improvement plan includes a wide range of BMPs, control measures, and performance standards.
Sacramento City Code The City's Grading, Erosion, and Sediment Control Ordinance (Sacramento City Code Chapter 15.88) requires project applicants to prepare erosion and sediment control plans for both project construction and the postconstruction period, as well as preliminary and final grading plans. The ordinance applies to projects where 50 cubic yards or more of soil is excavated and/or disposed and requires BMPs that must be approved by the City's Department of Utilities.
In addition, the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Sacramento City Code Chapter 13.16) serves to minimize or eliminate sediment and pollutants in nonstormwater discharges to the stormwater conveyance system and to reduce pollutants in urban stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. Specific control measures must be developed to reduce the risk of nonstormwater discharge and/or pollutant discharge into the City’s drainage system or receiving waters from business-related activities.
City of Sacramento General Plan The following goals and policies from the Utilities, Environmental Resources, and Environmental Constraints elements of the Sacramento 2035 General Plan are applicable to the HQCMP.
Utilities Element Goal U 4.1: Adequate Stormwater Drainage. Provide adequate stormwater drainage facilities and services that are environmentally sensitive, accommodate growth, and protect residents and property.
• Policy U 4.1.1: Adequate Drainage Facilities. The City shall ensure that all new drainage facilities are adequately sized and constructed to accommodate stormwater runoff in urbanized areas.
Environmental Resources Element Goal ER 1.1: Water Quality Protection. Protect local watersheds, water bodies and groundwater resources, including creeks, reservoirs, the Sacramento and American rivers, and their shorelines.
• Policy ER 1.1.3: Stormwater Quality. The City shall control sources of pollutants and improve and maintain urban runoff water quality through storm water protection measures consistent with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
Page 3.8-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Policy ER 1.1.6: Post-Development Runoff. The City shall impose requirements to control the volume, frequency, duration, and peak flow rates and velocities of runoff from development projects to prevent or reduce downstream erosion and protect stream habitat.
• Policy ER 1.1.7: Construction Site Impacts. The City shall minimize disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by development, implement measures to protect areas from erosion and sediment loss, and continue to require construction contractors to comply with the City’s erosion and sediment control ordinance and stormwater management and discharge control ordinance.
Environmental Constraints Element Goal EC 2.1: Flood Protection. Protect life and property from flooding.
• Policy EC 2.1.20: Roadway Systems as Escape Routes. The City shall require that areas protected from flooding by levees be designed to provide multiple escape routes for residents and access for emergency services in the event of a levee or dam failure.
3.8.2 Environmental Setting
Surface Water Hydrology
The Headquarters Campus, as part of the City of Sacramento, is located within the Sacramento River Basin, which encompasses about 27,000 square miles and is bounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Coast Ranges to the west, the Cascade Range and Trinity Mountains to the north, and the Delta to the southeast. The three forks of the upper American River originate high in the Sierra Nevada and drain approximately 1,875 square miles of mountainous terrain before converging at Folsom Reservoir. Folsom Dam and Reservoir were constructed to regulate water releases for power generation. Nimbus Dam, which forms Lake Natoma, regulates water released from the Folsom Reservoir hydroelectric facility. The lower American River runs from below Nimbus Dam downstream 23 miles to its confluence with the Sacramento River, and is designated as “Recreational” under both the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This highly regulated river system is contained by natural bluffs and terraces, and by constructed levees. The project site is located approximately 0.75 mile southwest of the American River, which at that location is protected by federal levees on both sides. There are no natural surface water features on the project site.
Flooding
The American River Flood Control System includes Folsom Dam, Nimbus Dam, an auxiliary dam at Mormon Island, and eight earth-filled dikes. High water levels along the Sacramento and American rivers are a common occurrence in the winter and early spring months. An extensive system of dams, levees, overflow weirs, drainage pumping
Page 3.8-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
plants, and flood control bypass channels strategically located on the Sacramento and American rivers has been established to protect the area from flooding. A river corridor management plan was developed in 2002 to achieve long-term solutions to the many flood control, environmental protection, and recreation issues in the lower American River. The goal of the river corridor management plan with regard to flood management is to improve the reliability of the existing flood-control system along the lower American River (City of Sacramento 2014). According to the most recent FIRM prepared by FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program, the project site is located outside of the 100-year floodplain (FEMA 2012). The project site is located within the Folsom Dam inundation area (Sacramento County 2011).
Groundwater
The project site is underlain by the South American Subbasin, which is included in the larger Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin. The South American subbasin aquifer system is comprised of continental deposits of Late Tertiary to Quaternary age. These deposits include younger alluvium (consisting of flood basin deposits, dredge tailings and Holocene stream channel deposits), older alluvium, and Miocene/Pliocene volcanics. The cumulative thickness of these deposits increases from a few hundred feet near the Sierra Nevada foothills on the east to over 2,500 feet along the western margin of the subbasin. The maximum combined thickness of all the younger alluvial units is about 100 feet. Calculated specific yield values range from about 5.4 percent in the flood basin deposits to 10 percent in the stream channel deposits (Olmstead and Davis 1961, as cited in DWR 2004).
Stormwater
Stormwater for the project site is collected through a series of inlets in the parking lots and landscape areas and conveyed through 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch pipes. Stormwater is conveyed southerly with three points of connection to the City’s storm drain system in a 15-inch pipe in S Street. Stormwater is then carried in the 15-inch pipe easterly to 65th Street where it connects to a 60-inch pipe and flows northerly to Sump Pump Station #31. Stormwater is then pumped across the California State University, Sacramento campus through a drainage system and discharged into the American River (SMUD 2015).
The on-site pipe network has relatively flat slopes, which limits pipe capacity. Under existing conditions and using the City of Sacramento standards, the site has a 10-year peak discharge of 12 cubic feet per second (cfs). The capacity of the 15-inch pipe in S Street with a slope of 0.2 percent is 2.9 cfs under full-flow conditions. Given the relatively flat slopes (close to 0.30 percent), on-site pipes also have very little capacity when compared to the peak discharge on even a portion of the site. The project site is currently subject to localized flooding as a result of existing deficiencies in the storm drain pipe system (SMUD 2015).
Page 3.8-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.8.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance/Significance Criteria
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the project would result in a potentially significant impact related to hydrology and water quality if it would:
• violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;
• substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted);
• substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial on- or offsite erosion or siltation;
• substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
• otherwise substantially degrade water quality;
• place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map;
• place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows;
• expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam; or
• result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
Analysis Methodology
Evaluation of potential hydrologic and water quality impacts was based on a review of existing information from previously completed documents that address water resources in the project vicinity, including the City of Sacramento General Plan (2015) and FEMA floodplain maps. The information obtained from these sources was reviewed and summarized to establish existing conditions and to identify potential environmental effects, based on the standards of significance presented in this section. In determining the level of significance, the analysis assumes that the proposed project would comply
Page 3.8-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
with relevant federal, state, and local ordinances and regulations (see Section 3.8.1, “Regulatory Setting”).
Water quality impacts associated with temporary construction activities were assessed in a qualitative manner. The potential short-term, construction-related effects of grading and land disturbance were assessed based on the probability of seasonal exposure to rainfall and runoff, routes of exposure for contaminants to enter surface water, and the magnitude and duration of construction relative to the potential water quality parameters expected to be affected by the activity.
Issues or Potential Impacts Not Discussed Further
Groundwater The HQCMP would involve improvements within the previously-developed campus, which are primarily paved areas. The proposed project would not involve construction practices or develop facilities that would substantially prevent or otherwise redirect groundwater resources in the project site. The very limited increase in impervious surface area resulting from HQCMP implementation would not change any surface infiltration characteristics affecting groundwater recharge. In addition, no increase in groundwater demand is anticipated as a result of HQCMP implementation. For all these reasons, there would be no impacts on groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge, and this issue will not be analyzed further.
100-Year Flood Risk The project site is not located within the 100-year flood hazard area (FEMA 2012). Thus, no impact associated with housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area would occur, and this issue will not be analyzed further.
Dam Failure Risk The HQCMP would not increase the potential for dam or levee failure because the project site is not located close to levees or dams such that such structures could be physically affected. The potential risk of failure at both the Nimbus and Folsom dams are remote, and no significant flood risks associated with levee or dam failure would occur as a result of HQCMP implementation. This issue will not be analyzed further.
Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow The project area is not within an area subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflows (City of Sacramento 2014). Therefore, the proposed project would have no impact related to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow and this issue will not be analyzed further in the EIR.
Page 3.8-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.8-1: Short-term water quality impacts.
Construction activities associated with HQCMP implementation would involve grading and movement of soil, which could result in erosion and sedimentation, and discharge of other nonpoint source pollutants in on-site stormwater that could then drain to off-site areas and degrade local water quality. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for HQCMP implementation have not yet been developed. However, project construction would involve ground-disturbing activities over up to 38 acres, including grading, trenching, foundation installation, vegetation removal, fence construction, and road improvements. Because of the increase in exposed surfaces and the earth-moving activities, the potential for erosion and sedimentation runoff is higher during the rainy season.
Construction activities would create the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation within the project site. The construction process may also result in accidental release of other pollutants to surface waters, including oil and gas, chemical substances used during construction, waste concrete, and wash water. Many construction-related wastes have the potential to degrade existing water quality by altering the dissolved-oxygen content, temperature, pH, suspended-sediment and turbidity levels, or nutrient content, or by causing toxic effects in the aquatic environment. Proposed construction activities, if not properly implemented, could violate water quality standards or cause direct harm to aquatic organisms.
Intense rainfall and associated stormwater runoff could result in short periods of sheet erosion within areas of exposed or stockpiled soils. If uncontrolled, these soil materials could cause sedimentation and blockage of drainage channels. Further, the compaction of soils by heavy equipment may reduce the infiltration capacity of soils and increase the potential for runoff and erosion. Stormwater runoff could also wash construction materials into receiving waterbodies and negatively impact water quality. Non- stormwater pollutant discharges could result from activities such as discharge or accidental spills of hazardous substances such as fuels, oils, concrete, paints, solvents, cleaners, or other construction materials.
Because more than one acre of land disturbance would occur during construction activities, coverage under the State of California General Construction Storm Water Permit (Construction General Permit, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as modified by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ would be required. Erosion, contaminated stormwater runoff, non-stormwater pollutant discharges attributable to the project have the potential to violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
Page 3.8-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Mitigation Measure 3.8-1: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. SMUD will implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1, in Section 3.5, “Geology and Soils,” which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs, such as preservation of existing vegetation where possible, surface roughening of final grades, use of riparian buffers or filter strips, stabilization of exposed disturbed areas with hydroseed, use of fiber rolls and silt fences, and stabilization of exposed soils. Refer to Section 3.5 for the full text of this mitigation measure.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-1 would reduce potential construction-related impacts on water quality to a less-than-significant level by implementing a SWPPP and BMPs to ensure that water quality standards and waste discharge requirements are not violated. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to Phase 1 would be required for impacts to be less than significant.
Impact 3.8-2: Alteration of the site’s existing drainage pattern.
Project construction activities could alter the drainage pattern of the project site sufficiently to result in erosion and sedimentation, and discharge of other nonpoint source pollutants, which would degrade local water quality. Impacts would be potentially significant.
Implementation of the HQCMP could result in the addition of new impervious surface area that would result in additional runoff within the project site. Without implementation of stormwater management controls, the net increase in impervious area would result in an associated increase in both the total volume and the peak discharge rate of stormwater runoff. Therefore, this increase could result in greater potential for on- and off-site flooding, greater potential to exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, and the need for construction of new or expanded stormwater drainage facilities.
As a commercial development with an impervious area of greater than 1 acre, the MS4 Permit requires a project applicant, which in this case would be SMUD, to incorporate source control measures, Low Impact Development (LID) controls, and treatment control measures into the project’s design to reduce potential impacts to water quality. Typical source control measures include the following (Sacramento Stormwater Quality Partnership 2014):
• Efficient Irrigation: Avoid excessive irrigation that produces runoff, implement drip irrigation where feasible, comply with local ordinances regarding drought tolerant and native landscaping, use smart irrigation controllers and regularly inspect for leaky lines.
Page 3.8-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Landscaping: Use of organic fertilizers (e.g., organic wood mulch) instead of synthetic fertilizers, and proper application and watering so as to minimize leached concentrations.
• Loading/Unloading Areas: Design loading/unloading areas to minimize the chance of spills and leaks and keep and spilled/leaked materials out of the storm drain system and receiving waters. Strategies include covering loading areas, isolating the drainage area to pretreatment devices and then to the sanitary sewer system, and equipping the drainage system with emergency spill shut-off/diversion valve.
• Outdoor Storage Areas: Locate and design outdoor material storage areas so that materials do not get washed off-site with runoff and become sources of pollutants to the municipal storm drain system (covered storage, secondary containment, isolating drainage, etc.).
• Storm Drain Inlet Markings and Signage: Stencil or mark storm drain inlets with “no dumping” or “drains to river.”
• Waste management areas: Design an enclosed area for waste and recycling storage and collection on the site so that containers cannot be knocked over and where unauthorized use or vandalism is unlikely. Drainage should be directed away from recycling/waste storage areas; connect the hydraulically isolated area to the sanitary sewer system if possible.
Although design of LID and treatment control measures have not been developed, SMUD is required to comply with the provisions for new development and redevelopment contained within the Regional MS4 Permit, in addition to local general plan policies and ordinance codes related to water quality. SMUD would be required to comply with the City’s Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Code (Ord. 2004-042 Section 1; Ord. 98-007 Section 1), Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance No. 93-068, and must implement BMPs to the maximum extent practicable, as outlined in guidance within the currently adopted stormwater quality design manual. Grading plans and tentative map submittals would not be approved, and thus the project would not be constructed, without review and approval of these plans by the City’s Department of Utilities. General Plan Policy ER 1.1.4 further requires/ensures that new development comply with the provisions of the MS4 Permit.
Final drainage plans shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Sacramento Department of Utilities that 100-year (0.01-AEP) flood flows would be appropriately channeled and contained, such that the risk to people or damage to structures within or downgradient of the project site would not occur and the capacity of the stormwater drainage system would not be exceeded or require expansion.
Project construction activities would involve grading and movement of soil, which could result in erosion and sedimentation, and discharge of other nonpoint source pollutants in onsite stormwater that could then drain to offsite areas and degrade local water quality.
Page 3.8-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
These activities have the potential to cause or increase soil erosion and could accidentally discharge wastes into waterways in runoff. Because project construction could alter the drainage pattern of the project site sufficiently to result in increased erosion or siltation, this impact would be potentially significant during project construction.
Mitigation Measure 3.8-2: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1. SMUD will implement Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 in Section 3.5, “Geology and Soils,” which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP and associated BMPs. Refer to Section 3.5 for the full text of this mitigation measure.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.8-2 would reduce the potential for on- or offsite erosion as a result of alteration of the site’s drainage pattern to a less-than-significant level through the use of erosion control BMPs. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to Phase 1 (i.e., Central Plant modernization and Auxiliary Building relocation) would be required for impacts to be less than significant.
Impact 3.8-3: Long-term water quality degradation.
Redevelopment of the Headquarters Campus, pursuant to the HQCMP, could alter the types, quantities, and timing of contaminant discharges in stormwater runoff. Overall, the potential for HQCMP implementation to cause or contribute to long-term discharges of urban contaminants (e.g., oil and grease, trace metals and organics, trash) into the stormwater drainage system could increase, compared with existing conditions, if the system is not properly designed. SMUD would comply with federal and state stormwater management regulations and would incorporate appropriate BMPs into project design to prevent long-term water quality degradation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Operation of land uses at the project site could potentially increase the level of urban contaminants discharged into the stormwater drainage system. Some of the currently vacant (but paved) land on the project site would be developed with permanent uses, including structure foundations, perimeter fences, additional parking, and internal access roads. The project has the potential to increase the pollutant load of stormwater discharges as a result of redevelopment of the site if the stormwater system is not properly designed. Anticipated pollutants associated with the project include trash, debris, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons from parking areas. In addition, potential pollutants associated with the project include sediment from pervious areas that would not be landscaped and organic compounds from uncovered parking areas and access roads.
In accordance with federal and state stormwater management regulations, new construction and significant redevelopment must maintain pre-project hydrology and incorporate proper pollutant source controls, minimize pollutant exposure outdoors, and treat stormwater runoff through proper BMPs when source control or exposure protection are insufficient for reducing runoff pollutant loads. In accordance with Central
Page 3.8-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Valley RWQCB compliance guidelines, SMUD would be required to incorporate appropriate BMPs into project design to prevent long-term water quality degradation.
While the potential for development of the project site to cause or contribute to long- term discharges of urban contaminants into the stormwater drainage system could increase compared to existing conditions, SMUD would be required to comply with federal and state stormwater management regulations, which would require the incorporation of appropriate BMPs into the design of the development to prevent long- term water quality degradation. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Page 3.8-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3.8-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.9 Noise and Vibration
This section includes a description of acoustic fundamentals and the existing noise environment in the project vicinity, a summary of applicable regulations, and analyses of potential short- and long-term noise impacts of the proposed project.
3.9.1 Acoustic Fundamentals
Acoustics is the scientific study that evaluates perception, propagation, absorption, and reflection of sound waves. Sound is a mechanical form of radiant energy, transmitted by a pressure wave through a solid, liquid, or gaseous medium. Sound that is loud, disagreeable, unexpected, or unwanted is generally defined as noise. Common sources of environmental noise and noise levels are presented in Table 3.9-1.
Table 3.9-1 Typical Noise Levels Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dB) Common Indoor Activities 110 Rock band Jet flyover at 1,000 feet 100 Gas lawnmower at 3 feet 90 Diesel truck moving at 50 mph at 50 feet 80 Food blender at 3 feet, Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, Gas lawnmower at 100 70 Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet, Normal speech at 3 feet feet Commercial area, Heavy traffic at 300 60 feet Quiet urban daytime 50 Large business office, Dishwasher in next room Quiet urban nighttime 40 Theater, Large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime 30 Library, Bedroom at night, Concert hall (background) Quiet rural nighttime 20 Broadcast/Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Human Hearing 0 Threshold of Human Hearing Notes: dB=A-weighted decibels; mph=miles per hour Source: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2009
Sound Properties
A sound wave is initiated in a medium by a vibrating object (e.g., vocal chords, the string of a guitar, the diaphragm of a radio speaker). The wave consists of minute variations in pressure, oscillating above and below the ambient atmospheric pressure. The number of pressure variation cycles occurring per second is referred to as the frequency of the sound wave and is expressed in hertz.
3.9-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Directly measuring sound pressure fluctuations would require the use of a very large and cumbersome range of numbers. To avoid this and have a more useable numbering system, the decibel (dB) scale was introduced. A sound level expressed in dBs is the logarithmic ratio of two like pressure quantities, with one pressure quantity being a reference sound pressure. For sound pressure in air the standard reference quantity is generally considered to be 20 micropascals, which directly corresponds to the threshold of human hearing. The use of the dB is a convenient way to handle the million-fold range of sound pressures to which the human ear is sensitive. A dB is logarithmic; it does not follow normal algebraic methods and cannot be directly summed. For example, a 65-dB source of sound, such as a truck, when joined by another 65-dB source results in a sound amplitude of 68 dB, not 130 dB (i.e., doubling the source strength increases the sound pressure by 3 dB). A sound level increase of 10 dB corresponds to 10 times the acoustical energy, and an increase of 20 dB equates to a 100-fold increase in acoustical energy.
The loudness of sound perceived by the human ear depends primarily on the overall sound pressure level and frequency content of the sound source. The human ear is not equally sensitive to loudness at all frequencies in the audible spectrum. To better relate overall sound levels and loudness to human perception, frequency-dependent weighting networks were developed. The standard weighting networks are identified as A through E. There is a strong correlation between the way humans perceive sound and A- weighted sound levels (dBA). For this reason, the dBA scale can be used to predict community response to noise from the environment, including noise from transportation and stationary sources. Sound levels expressed as dB in this chapter are A-weighted sound levels, unless noted otherwise.
Noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources (i.e., transportation) such as automobiles, trucks, and airplanes, and stationary sources (i.e., non-transportation) such as construction sites, machinery, and commercial and industrial operations. As acoustic energy spreads through the atmosphere from the source to the receiver, noise levels attenuate (i.e., decrease) depending on ground absorption characteristics, atmospheric conditions, and the presence of physical barriers. Noise generated from mobile sources generally attenuate at a rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance. Stationary noise sources spread with more spherical dispersion patterns that attenuate at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dB per doubling of distance.
Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, turbulence, temperature gradients, and humidity may additionally alter the propagation of noise and affect levels at a receiver. Furthermore, the presence of a large object (e.g., barrier, topographic features, and intervening building façades) between the source and the receptor can provide significant attenuation of noise levels at the receiver. The amount of noise level reduction (i.e., shielding) provided by a barrier primarily depends on the size of the barrier, the location of the barrier in relation to the source and receivers, and the frequency spectra of the noise. Natural (e.g., berms, hills, and dense vegetation) and human-made features (e.g., buildings and walls) may be used as noise barriers.
3.9-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
All buildings provide some exterior-to-interior noise reduction. A building constructed with a wood frame and a stucco or wood sheathing exterior typically provides a minimum exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 25 dB with its windows closed, whereas a building constructed of a steel or concrete frame, a curtain wall or masonry exterior wall, and fixed plate glass windows of one-quarter-inch thickness typically provides an exterior-to-interior noise reduction of 30–40 dB with its windows closed (Caltrans 2002a).
Common Noise Descriptors
The intensity of environmental noise fluctuates over time, and several different descriptors of time-averaged noise levels are used. The selection of a proper noise descriptor for a specific source depends on the spatial and temporal distribution, duration, and fluctuation of both the noise source and the environment. The noise descriptors most often in relation to the environment are defined below (Caltrans 2009).
• Equivalent Noise Level (Leq): The equivalent steady-state noise level in a stated period of time that would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying noise level during the same period (i.e., average noise level).
• Maximum Noise Level (Lmax): The highest instantaneous noise level during a specified time period.
• Minimum Noise Level (Lmin): The lowest instantaneous noise level during a specified time period.
• Day-Night Noise Level (Ldn): The 24-hour Leq with a 10-dB penalty applied during the noise-sensitive hours from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., which are typically reserved for sleeping.
• Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): Similar to the Ldn described above with an additional 5-dB penalty applied during the noise-sensitive hours from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., which are typically reserved for relaxation, conversation, reading, and watching television.
Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the all-encompassing noise level associated with a given noise environment. A common statistical tool to measure the ambient noise level is the Leq descriptor listed above, which corresponds to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptors such as Ldn and CNEL, as defined above, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.
Effects of Noise on Humans
Excessive and chronic exposure to elevated noise levels can result in auditory and non- auditory effects on humans. Auditory effects of noise on people are those related to
3.9-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
temporary or permanent hearing loss caused by loud noises. Non-auditory effects of exposure to elevated noise levels are those related to behavioral and physiological effects. The non-auditory behavioral effects of noise on humans are associated primarily with the subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction, which lead to interference with activities such as communications, sleep, and learning. The non-auditory physiological health effects of noise on humans have been the subject of considerable research attempting to discover correlations between exposure to elevated noise levels and health problems, such as hypertension and cardiovascular disease. The mass of research infers that noise-related health issues are predominantly the result of behavioral stressors and not a direct noise-induced response. The extent to which noise contributes to non-auditory health effects remains a subject of considerable research, with no definitive conclusions.
The degree to which noise results in annoyance and interference is highly subjective and may be influenced by several non-acoustic factors. The number and effect of these non-acoustic environmental and physical factors vary depending on individual characteristics of the noise environment such as sensitivity, level of activity, location, time of day, and length of exposure. One key aspect in the prediction of human response to new noise environments is the individual level of adaptation to an existing noise environment. The greater the change in the noise levels that are attributed to a new noise source, relative to the environment an individual has become accustom to, the less tolerable the new noise source will be perceived.
With respect to how humans perceive and react to changes in noise levels, a 1 dB increase is imperceptible, a 3-dB increase is barely perceptible, a 6-dB increase is clearly noticeable, and a 10-dB increase is subjectively perceived as approximately twice as loud (Egan 2007). These subjective reactions to changes in noise levels were developed on the basis of test subjects’ reactions to changes in the levels of steady- state pure tones or broad-band noise and to changes in levels of a given noise source. It is probably most applicable to noise levels in the range of 50 to 70 dB, as this is the usual range of voice and interior noise levels. For these reasons, a noise level increase of 3 dB or more is typically considered substantial in terms of the degradation of the existing noise environment.
Negative effects of noise exposure include physical damage to the human auditory system, interference, and disease. Exposure to noise may result in physical damage to the auditory system, which may lead to gradual or traumatic hearing loss. Gradual hearing loss is caused by sustained exposure to moderately high noise levels over a period of time; traumatic hearing loss is caused by sudden exposure to extremely high noise levels over a short period. Gradual and traumatic hearing loss both may result in permanent hearing damage. In addition, noise may interfere with or interrupt sleep, relaxation, recreation, and communication. Although most interference may be classified as annoying, the inability to hear a warning signal may be considered dangerous. Noise may also be a contributor to diseases associated with stress, such as hypertension, anxiety, and heart disease. The degree to which noise contributes to such
3.9-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 diseases depends on the frequency, bandwidth, and level of the noise, and the exposure time (Caltrans 2009).
Vibration
Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object with respect to a given reference point. Sources of vibration include natural phenomena (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) and those introduced by human activity (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, (e.g., operating factory machinery or transient in nature, explosions). Vibration levels can be depicted in terms of amplitude and frequency, relative to displacement, velocity, or acceleration.
Vibration amplitudes are commonly expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root- mean-square (RMS) vibration velocity. PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is typically used in the monitoring of transient and impact vibration and has been found to correlate well to the stresses experienced by buildings (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2006; Caltrans 2004). PPV and RMS vibration velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec).
Although PPV is appropriate for evaluating the potential for building damage, it is not always suitable for evaluating human response. It takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. In a sense, the human body responds to average vibration amplitude. The RMS of a signal is the average of the squared amplitude of the signal, typically calculated over a 1-second period. As with airborne sound, the RMS velocity is often expressed in decibel notation as vibration decibels (VdB), which serves to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration (FTA 2006). This is based on a reference value of 1 micro (μ) in/sec.
The typical background vibration-velocity level in residential areas is approximately 50 VdB. Groundborne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels (FTA 2006).
Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground vibration are construction equipment, steel- wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration-velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in fragile buildings. Construction activities can generate ground vibrations, which can pose a risk to nearby structures. Constant or transient vibrations can weaken structures, crack facades, and disturb occupants (FTA 2006).
Construction vibrations can be transient, random, or continuous. Transient construction vibrations are generated by blasting, impact pile driving, and wrecking balls. Continuous vibrations result from vibratory pile drivers, large pumps, and compressors. Random vibration can result from jackhammers, pavement breakers, and heavy construction
3.9-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
equipment. Table 3.9-2 describes the general human response to different levels of ground vibration-velocity levels.
Table 3.9-2 Human Response to Different Levels of Ground Noise and Vibration Vibration-Velocity Level Human Reaction 65 VdB Approximate threshold of perception. Approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible. 75 VdB Many people find that transportation-related vibration at this level is unacceptable. 85 VdB Vibration acceptable only if there are an infrequent number of events per day. Notes: VdB = vibration decibels referenced to 1 μ inch/second and based on the root mean square velocity amplitude. Source: FTA 2006
3.9.2 Regulatory Setting
Various private and public agencies have established noise guidelines and standards to protect citizens from potential hearing damage and other adverse physiological and social effects associated with noise. Applicable standards and guidelines are described below.
Federal
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Noise Abatement and Control was originally established to coordinate federal noise control activities. After its inception, the EPA’s Office of Noise Abatement and Control issued the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972, establishing programs and guidelines to identify and address the effects of noise on public health, welfare, and the environment. In 1981, EPA administrators determined that subjective issues such as noise would be better addressed at more local levels of government. Consequently, in 1982 responsibilities for regulating noise control policies were transferred to state and local governments; however, noise control guidelines and regulations contained in EPA rulings in prior years remain in place by designated federal agencies where relevant.
State
The State of California has adopted noise standards in areas of regulation not preempted by the federal government. State standards regulate noise levels of motor vehicles, sound transmission through buildings, occupational noise control, and noise insulation.
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, also known as the California Building Standards Code, establishes building standards applicable to all occupancies throughout the state. The code provides acoustical regulations for both exterior-to- interior sound insulation as well as sound and impact isolation between adjacent spaces of various occupied units. Title 24 regulations state that interior noise levels generated
3.9-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 by exterior noise sources shall not exceed 45 dB Ldn/CNEL, with windows closed, in any habitable room for general residential uses.
Though not adopted by law, the State of California General Plan Guidelines 2017, published by the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), provides guidance for the compatibility of projects within areas of specific noise exposure. Table 3.9-3 presents acceptable and unacceptable community noise exposure limits for various land use categories. The guidelines also present adjustment factors that may be used to arrive at noise acceptability standards that reflect the noise control goals of the community, the particular community’s sensitivity to noise, and the community’s assessment of the relative importance of noise pollution.
Table 3.9-3 Noise Compatibility Guidelines
Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Land Use Category Normally Conditionally Normally Clearly Acceptable1 Acceptable2 Unacceptable3 Unacceptable4 Residential – Low Density Single Family, <60 55-70 70-75 75+ Duplex, Mobile Home Residential - Multiple Family <65 60-70 70-75 75+ Transient Lodging, Motel, Hotel <65 60-70 70-80 80+ School, Library, Church, Hospital, Nursing <65 60-70 70-80 80+ Home Auditorium, Concert Hall, Amphitheater <70 65+ Sports Arenas - Outdoor Spectator Sports <75 70+ Playground, Neighborhood Park <70 68.5-75 72.5+ Golf Courses, Stable, Water Recreation, <75 70-80 80+ Cemetery Office Building, Business Commercial and <70 68.5-72.5 75+ Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture <75 70-80 75+
Notes: Ldn=day-night level, CNEL=community noise equivalent level, dBA=A-weighted decibels 1 Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. 2 New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. 3 New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. 4 New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. Source: OPR 2017:374
3.9-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Local
City of Sacramento General Plan The Environmental Constraints, Land Use, and Mobility elements of the City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan establishes the following standards and policies that are relevant to the analysis of the noise effects of the project:
Environmental Constraints • Policy EC 3.1.1: Exterior Noise Standards. The City shall require noise mitigation for all development where the projected exterior noise levels exceed those shown in Table EC 1 (presented as Table 3.9-4, below), to the extent feasible.
Table 3.9-4 Exterior Noise Compatibility Standards for Various Land Uses Highest Level of Noise Exposure that Interior Noise Land Use Category is Regarded as “Normally 1 2 3 Standards Acceptable” (Ldn or CNEL )
Residential – Low Density Single Family, Duplex, 4,5 60 dBA 45 Ldn Mobile Home 6 Residential - Multiple Family 65 dBA 45 Ldn Urban Residential Infill 7 and Mixed-Use Projects 70 dBA 8,9,10 45 Ldn
Transient Lodging-Motels, Hotels 65 dBA 45 Ldn School, Library, Church, Hospital, Nursing Homes 70 dBA 45 Ldn Auditorium, Concert Hall, Amphitheater Mitigation based on site-specific study - Sports Arenas - Outdoor Spectator Sports Mitigation based on site-specific study - Playground, Neighborhood Park 70 dBA - Golf Courses, Stable, Water Recreation, Cemetery 75 dBA - Office Building, Business Commercial and 70 dBA 45 Leq Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture 75 dBA - Notes: Ldn=day-night level, CNEL=community noise equivalent level, dBA=A-weighted decibels 1 As defined in the Guidelines, “Normally Acceptable” means that the “specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any building involved is of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements.” 2 Ldn or Day Night Average Level is an average 24-hour noise measurement that factors in day and night noise levels. 3 CNEL or Community Noise Equivalent Level measurements are a weighted average of sound levels gathered throughout a 24-hour period. 4 Applies to the primary open space area of a detached single-family home, duplex, or mobile home, which is typically the backyard or fenced side yard, as measured from the center of the primary open space area (not the property line). This standard does not apply to secondary open space areas, such as front yards, balconies, stoops, and porches. 5 dBA or A-weighted decibel scale is a measurement of noise levels. 6 The exterior noise standard for the residential area west of McClellan Airport known as McClellan Heights/Parker Homes is 65 dBA. 7 Applies to the primary open space areas of townhomes and multi-family apartments or condominiums (private year yards for townhomes; common courtyards, roof gardens, or gathering spaces for multi-family developments). These standards shall not apply to balconies or small attached patios in multistoried multi-family structures. 8 With land use designations of Central Business District, Urban Neighborhood (Low, Medium, or High) Urban Center (Low or High), Urban Corridor (Low or High). 9 All mixed-use projects located anywhere in the City of Sacramento 10 See notes d and g above for definition of primary open space areas for single-family and multi-family developments. Source: OPR 2003
3.9-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Policy EC 3.1.2: Exterior Incremental Noise Standards. The City shall require noise mitigation for all development that increases existing noise levels by more than the allowable increment shown in Table EC 2 (presented as Table 3.9-5, below), to the extent feasible.
Table 3.9-5 Exterior Incremental Noise Impact Standards for Noise-Sensitive Uses (dBA) Residences and Buildings where People Institutional Land Uses with Primarily Daytime and Normally Sleep1 Evening Uses2 Allowable Noise Existing Ldn Existing Peak Hour Leq Allowable Noise Increment Increment 45 8 45 12 50 5 50 9 55 3 55 6 60 2 60 5 65 1 65 3 70 1 70 3 75 0 75 1 80 0 80 0
Notes: dBA=A-weighted decibel, Ldn=day-night level, Leq=equivalent continuous sound level 1 This category includes homes, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity to noise is assumed to be of utmost importance. 2 New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Source: FTA 2006
• Policy EC 3.1.3: Interior Noise Standards. The City shall require new development to include noise mitigation to assure acceptable interior noise levels appropriate to the land use type: 45 dBA Ldn (with windows closed) for residential, transient lodgings, hospitals, nursing homes and other uses where people normally sleep; and 45 dBA Leq (peak hour with windows closed) for office buildings and similar uses.
• Policy EC 3.1.5: Interior Vibration Standards. The City shall require construction projects anticipated to generate a significant amount of vibration to ensure acceptable interior vibration levels at nearby residential and commercial uses based on the current City or Federal Transit Administration (FTA) criteria.
• Policy EC 3.1.6: Effects of Vibration. The City shall consider potential effects of vibration when reviewing new residential and commercial projects that are proposed in the vicinity of rail lines or light rail lines.
• Policy EC 3.1.7: Vibration. The City shall require an assessment of the damage potential of vibration-induced construction activities, highways, and rail lines in close proximity to historic buildings and archaeological sites and require all feasible measures be implemented to ensure no damage would occur.
3.9-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Policy EC 3.1.8: Operational Noise. The City shall require mixed-use, commercial, and industrial projects to mitigate operational noise impacts to adjoining sensitive uses when operational noise thresholds are exceeded.
• Policy EC 3.1.10: Construction Noise. The City shall require development projects subject to discretionary approval to assess potential construction noise impacts on nearby sensitive uses and to minimize impacts on these uses, to the extent feasible.
• Policy EC 3.1.11: Alternatives to Sound Walls. The City shall encourage the use of design strategies and other noise reduction methods along transportation corridors in lieu of sound walls to mitigate noise impacts and enhance aesthetics.
Land Use • Policy LU 2.7.5: Development along Freeways. The City shall promote high-quality development character of buildings along freeway corridors and protect the public from the adverse effects of vehicle-generated air emissions, noise, and vibration, using such techniques as:
Requiring extensive landscaping and trees along the freeway fronting elevation
Establish a consistent building line, articulating and modulating building elevations and heights to create visual interest
Include design elements that reduce noise and provide for proper filtering, ventilation, and exhaust of vehicle air emissions (RDR/MPSP)
Mobility • Policy M 7.1.6: Truck Traffic Noise Minimization. The City shall seek to minimize noise and other impacts of truck traffic, deliveries, and staging in residential and mixed-use neighborhoods. (RDR)
City of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance The City’s Noise Control Ordinance establishes the following standards related to noise that may be applicable to the project:
8.68.060 Exterior noise standards. A. The following noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated in this article, shall apply to all agricultural and residential properties. From 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. the exterior noise standard shall be fifty-five (55) dBA. From 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. the exterior noise standard shall be fifty (50) dBA.
B. It is unlawful for any person at any location to create any noise which causes the noise levels when measured on agricultural or residential property to exceed for the duration of time set forth following, the specified exterior noise standards in any one hour are summarized in Table 3.9-6 below:
3.9-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.9-6 Exterior Noise Standards Cumulative Duration of the Intrusive Sound Allowance Decibels Cumulative period of 30 minutes per hour 0 Cumulative period of 15 minutes per hour +5 Cumulative period of 5 minutes per hour +10 Cumulative period of 1 minutes per hour +15 Level not to be exceeded for any time per hour +20 Source: Sacramento City Code 2015
C. Each of the noise limits specified in subsection B. of this section shall be reduced by 5 dBA for impulsive or simple tone noises, or for noises consisting of speech or music.
D. If the ambient noise level exceeds that permitted by any of the first four noise limit categories specified in subsection B of this section, the allowable noise limit shall be increased in 5 dBA increments in each category to encompass the ambient noise level. If the ambient noise level exceeds the fifth noise level category, the maximum ambient noise level shall be the noise limit for that category.
8.68.070 Interior noise standards. A. In any apartment, condominium, townhouse, duplex or multiple dwelling unit it is unlawful for any person to create any noise from inside his or her unit that causes the noise level when measured in a neighboring unit during the periods 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to exceed the values summarized in Table 3.9-7 below:
Table 3.9-7 Sacramento City Code Noise Ordinance Interior Noise Level Standards for Sensitive Receptors Cumulative Duration of Intrusive Sound Nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM)
Cumulative period of 5 minutes per hour (L83) 45
Cumulative period of 1 minute per hour (L17) 50
Level not to be exceeded for any time per hour (Lmax) 55 a. Noise standards apply to all agricultural and residential properties which are considered sensitive receptors. b. If the ambient noise level exceeds that permitted by any of the noise level categories specified in this table, the allowable noise limit shall be increased in 5 dBA increments in each category to encompass the ambient noise level. Source: Sacramento City Code 2015
B. If the ambient noise level exceeds that permitted by any of the noise level categories specified in subsection A of this section, the allowable noise limit shall be increased in 5 dBA increments in each category to encompass the ambient noise level.
8.68.080 Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
D. Noise sources due to the erection (including excavation), demolition, alteration or repair of any building or structure between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., on
3.9-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday; provided, however, that the operation of an internal combustion engine shall not be exempt pursuant to this subsection if such engine is not equipped with suitable exhaust and intake silencers which are in good working order. The director of building inspections, may permit work to be done during the hours not exempt by this subsection in the case of urgent necessity and in the interest of public health and welfare for a period not to exceed three days. Application for this exemption may be made in conjunction with the application for the work permit or during progress of the work.
Vibration Criteria
CEQA states that the potential for any excessive ground noise and vibration levels must be analyzed; however, it does not define the term “excessive” vibration. Numerous public and private organizations and governing bodies have provided guidelines to assist in the analysis of ground noise and vibration; however, the Federal, state, and local governments have yet to establish specific ground noise and vibration requirements. The following publications of the FTA and Caltrans are two of the seminal works for the analysis of ground noise and vibration relating to transportation and construction-induced vibration.
With respect to structural damage, Caltrans recommends that a level of 0.2 in/sec PPV not be exceeded for the protection of normal residential buildings, and that 0.1 in/sec PPV not be exceeded for the protection of old or historically significant structures (Caltrans 2004).
To address the human response to groundborne vibration, FTA has guidelines for maximum-acceptable vibration criteria for different types of land uses. These guidelines recommend 65 VdB referenced to 1 μin/sec and based on the RMS velocity amplitude for land uses where low ambient vibration is essential for interior operations (e.g., hospitals, high-tech manufacturing, laboratory facilities); 80 VdB for residential uses and buildings where people normally sleep; and 83 VdB for institutional land uses with primarily daytime operations (e.g., schools, churches, clinics, offices) (FTA 2006).
With respect to human response within residential uses (i.e., annoyance), FTA recommends maximum acceptable vibration levels of 80 VdB, respectively (FTA 2006).
3.9.3 Environmental Setting
Sources and Ambient Levels
The existing noise environment in the project area is primarily influenced by transportation noise from vehicle traffic on nearby roadways (i.e., US 50, Folsom Boulevard, 59th Street, 65th Street, S Street, and the Sacramento Regional Transit light rail transit line traffic). Other noise sources that contribute to the existing noise environment include existing activities on the project site and commercial uses along
3.9-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Folsom Boulevard. Those noise sources noted above are also considered sources of vibration in the project area.
Sound level measurements were conducted at various locations in the project area on Thursday, November 13, 2015. Three short-term measurements and one long-term (24- hour) measurement were taken and are considered representative of noise levels in the project area, including the project site. The location of each measurement in shown in Exhibit 3.9-1 and the sound levels are presented in Table 3.9-8.
Table 3.9-8 Summary of Existing Ambient Noise Level Measurements Short-Term Sound Level Measurements Measurement Time/Duration Primary Noise Source(s) Leeq Lmin Lmax Location Passing Train, Road Traffic, Freeway Traffic 1 9:04 a.m./15min 59.2 55.0 77.0 (continuous flow), People Talking 2 10:06 a.m./15min Passing Train 67.6 64.1 73.4 Passing Train, Road Traffic, Freeway Traffic 3 9:40 a.m./15min 65.1 62.5 69.0 (continuous flow) Passing Train, Road Traffic, Freeway Traffic, People 4 10:00 a.m./24-hour 71.6 52.9 83.9 Talking Notes: dB = A-weighted decibels; Leq = energy-equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum noise level; Lmin = minimum noise level; CNEL = community noise equivalent level The short-term measurements were conducted on Thursday, November 13, 2015 and the long-term, 24-hour measurement was started on the same day in the project area Source: Measurements conducted by Ascent Environmental in November 2015.
Noise level measurements were taken in accordance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standards using a Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) Model 820 precision integrating sound level meter (SLM). The SLM was calibrated before and after use with an LDL Model CAL200 acoustical calibrator. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the ANSI for Type 1 SLMs (ANSI S1.4-1983[R2006]). Meteorological conditions during the measurement period were adequate for reliable noise measurements, with clear blue skies, temperatures ranging from 50°F to 70°F, and light winds averaging one mile per hour. Refer to Exhibit 3.9-2 for a graphical summary of the measurement data.
3.9-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 3.9-1 Noise Measurement Locations in the Project Area
3.9-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Summary of 24-Hour Noise Measurement 90.0 85.0 80.0 75.0 70.0 65.0 60.0 55.0 50.0 45.0 Lmax 40.0 35.0 30.0 Leq
Noise Level (dBA) 25.0 20.0 Lmin 15.0 CNEL: 71.6 dB 10.0 5.0 0.0 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 10:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00
Exhibit 3.9-2 Summary of 24-Hour Noise Measurement
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; Leq = energy-equivalent noise level; Lmax = maximum noise level; Lmin = minimum noise level; CNEL = community noise equivalent level Data represents monitoring data from the project area taken on November 13, 2015. Source: Monitoring performed by Ascent Environmental, Inc. in November 2015.
Table 3.9-9 summarizes the modeled existing traffic noise levels at 100 feet from the centerline of roadway segments in the project vicinity and lists distances from each roadway centerline to the 70-dB, 65-dB, and 60-dB CNEL/Ldn traffic noise contours. Traffic noise modeling results are based on existing traffic volumes during the PM peak periods and assumes no natural or human-made shielding (e.g., vegetation, berms, walls, buildings). As shown in Table 3.9-9, the location of the 65-dB CNEL/Ldn traffic noise contours along segments in the project vicinity range from 41 to 149 feet from the centerline of the modeled roadways under existing conditions. The extent to which existing land uses in the project vicinity are affected by existing traffic noise depends on their respective proximity to the roadways and their individual sensitivity to noise.
Table 3.9-9 Summary of Modeled Existing Traffic Noise Levels Distance (feet) from CNEL/Ldn (dB) at 100 Roadway Centerline to Roadway Segment feet from Roadway CNEL/Ldn(dB) Centerline 70 65 60 59th St between T St and S St 62.0 16 50 159 59th St between Folsom Blvd and S St 62.1 16 51 161 S St between 59th St and 65th St 61.1 13 41 129 Folsom Blvd between 59th St and 65th St 63.8 24 76 241 65th St between 4th Ave and US 50 Eastbound Ramps 66.7 47 149 471
3.9-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.9-9 Summary of Modeled Existing Traffic Noise Levels Distance (feet) from CNEL/Ldn (dB) at 100 Roadway Centerline to Roadway Segment feet from Roadway CNEL/Ldn(dB) Centerline 70 65 60 65th St between US 50 Westbound Ramps and Q St 64.8 30 95 301 65th St between Q St and Folsom Blvd 64.8 30 96 305
Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dB = A-weighted decibels; Ldn = day-night average noise level Refer to Appendix D for detailed modeling input data and output results. Source: Data modeled by Ascent Environmental, Inc. 2017 using FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD- 77-108) (FHWA 1978).
Sensitive Land Uses
Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health-related risks to individuals, as well as places where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose. Residential dwellings are of primary concern because of the potential for increased and prolonged exposure of individuals to both interior and exterior noise levels. Additional land uses such as parks, schools, historic sites, cemeteries, and recreation areas are also generally considered sensitive to increases in exterior noise levels. Places of worship and transit lodging, and other places where low interior noise levels are essential are also considered noise-sensitive. Those noted above are also considered vibration-sensitive land uses in addition to commercial and industrial buildings where vibration would interfere with operations within the building, including levels that may be well below those associated with human annoyance.
Existing noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the project site primarily include single-family residences to the north and located south across US 50. The closest off-site residences are approximately 50 feet from the project site. Phoebe Hearst Elementary School and Saint Francis High School are located approximately 300 feet and 1,150 feet, respectively, from the northern boundary of the project site and California State University, Sacramento, is located about 0.25 mile from the eastern boundary of the site. The northern and central portions of the project site are bounded by commercial land uses including Corti Brother’s Grocery Market, Starbucks, Hoppy Brewing Company, and Happy Tails Pet Sanctuary. SMUD’s Child Care Center is also located within the boundaries of the project site.
3.9.4 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance/Significance Criteria
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, noise impacts are considered significant if implementation of the HQCMP would result in any of the following:
• exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards (e.g., long-term exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to increased stationary-source noise levels from project operations that exceed exterior noise
3.9-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
levels of 55 dB Leq during daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) and 50 dBA Leq during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.);
• exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground vibration or ground noise levels (e.g., exceed Caltrans’s recommended level of 0.2 in/sec PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings or FTA’s maximum acceptable level of 80 VdB with respect to human response for residential uses [i.e., annoyance] at nearby existing vibration-sensitive land uses);
• a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (e.g., long-term exposure of nearby sensitive receptors to increased stationary- or traffic-source noise levels that exceed noise levels of 45 dB Leq during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) for a cumulative period of 5 minutes per hour, 50 dB Leq during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) for a cumulative period of 1 minutes per hour, and 55 dB Leq during nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) at any time per hour;
• a substantial temporary (or periodic) increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project;
• for a project located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels; or
• for a project within the vicinity of an active private airstrip, where the project would expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Analysis Methodology
To assess potential short-term (construction-related) noise and vibration impacts, sensitive receptors and their relative exposure were identified. Project-generated construction source noise and vibration levels were determined based on methodologies, reference emission levels, and usage factors from FTA’s Guide on Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment methodology (FTA 2006) and FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide (FHWA 2006). Reference levels are noise and vibration emissions for specific equipment or activity types that are well documented and the usage thereof common practice in the field of acoustics.
With respect to non-transportation noise sources (e.g., stationary) associated with project implementation, the assessment of long-term (operational-related) impacts was based on reconnaissance data, existing documentation, reference noise emission levels, and standard attenuation rates and modeling techniques. As stated above, reference levels are noise emissions for specific equipment or activity types that are well documented and the usage thereof common practice in the field of acoustics.
3.9-17 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
To assess potential long-term (operation-related) noise impacts due to project- generated increases in traffic, modeling was conducted for affected roadway segments based on Caltrans’ traffic noise analysis protocol and the technical noise supplement (Caltrans 2006 and 2009) and project-specific traffic data. Refer to Appendix D of this Draft EIR for the modeling results. The analysis is based on the reference noise emission levels for automobiles, medium trucks, and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and ground attenuation factors. Truck usage and vehicle speeds on study area roadways were estimated from field observations and the project-specific traffic report. Please note that the modeling conducted does not account for any natural or human-made shielding (e.g., the presence of vegetation, berms, walls, or buildings) and; consequently, represents worst-case noise levels.
To evaluate relative significance, noise and vibration impacts were determined based on comparisons to applicable regulations and guidance provided by federal, state, and local agencies.
Issues or Potential Impacts Not Discussed Further
Exposure of People to Excessive Noise from an Airport/Airstrip The project site is located approximately 3.7 miles from Sacramento Executive Airport and 6 miles from Mather Air Force Base, and there are no other airports or airstrips, public or private, in the area. In addition, aviation operations would not be expanded under the HQCMP. Furthermore, implementation of the HQCMP would not result in the addition of sensitive receptors to the project site. As such, implementation of the HQCMP would not expose people residing or working within the project site to excessive noise levels and would thus have no impact. Therefore, this issue is not analyzed further.
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.9-1: Short-term construction noise impacts.
Construction activities associated with the future land use changes under the HQCMP could generate noise levels that exceed the noise standards established by the City of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance. This is considered a potentially significant impact; however, construction activities would be inherently short-term in nature and would be consistent with the noise exemptions for construction noise in the City’s Municipal Code. Furthermore, construction activities would adhere to parameters of acceptable construction operations found in the City of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance. This impact would therefore be less than significant.
Construction noise levels in the vicinity of the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number, and duration of usage for the varying equipment. The effects of construction noise largely depend on the type of construction activities
3.9-18 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
occurring on any given day, noise levels generated by those activities, distances to noise sensitive receptors, and the existing ambient noise environment in the receptor’s vicinity. Construction generally occurs in several discrete stages, each phase requiring a specific complement of equipment with varying equipment type, quantity, and intensity. These variations in the operational characteristics of the equipment change the effect they have on the noise environment of the project site and in the surrounding community for the duration of the construction process.
To assess noise levels associated with the various equipment types and operations, construction equipment can be considered to operate in two modes, mobile and stationary. Mobile equipment sources move around a construction site performing tasks in a recurring manner (e.g., loaders, graders, dozers). Stationary equipment operates in a given location for an extended period of time to perform continuous or periodic operations. Operational characteristics of heavy construction equipment are additionally typified by short periods of full-power operation followed by extended periods of operation at lower power, idling, or powered-off conditions.
Additionally, when construction-related noise levels are being evaluated, activities that occur during the more noise-sensitive evening and nighttime hours are of increased concern. Because exterior ambient noise levels typically decrease during the late evening and nighttime hours as traffic volumes and commercial activities decrease, construction activities performed during these more noise-sensitive periods of the day can result in increased annoyance and potential sleep disruption for occupants of nearby residential uses.
For the purposes of this analysis and because the HQCMP would involve redevelopment of on-site structures, this analysis assesses general construction impacts that would occur with redevelopment and construction of approximately 50,000 square feet (sf) of utility-related uses per year. As the HQCMP would be implemented over a period of 20 years and the total increase in square footage would be up to 220,100 sf (i.e., less than 5 years of 50,000 sf of construction per year), this is considered a reasonable yet conservative estimate of annual construction activities possible with HQCMP implementation.
The site preparation phase typically generates the most substantial noise levels because of the on-site equipment associated with grading, compacting, and excavation are the noisiest. Site preparation equipment and activities include backhoes, bulldozers, loaders, and excavation equipment (e.g., graders and scrapers). Erection of large structural elements and mechanical systems could require the use of a crane for placement and assembly tasks, which may also generate noise levels. Although a detailed construction equipment list is not currently available, based on the types of construction activities associated with the proposed project (e.g., site grading, biomass facility construction, parking improvements) it is expected that the primary sources of noise would include backhoes, dozers, and graders. Noise emission levels from these types of construction equipment are shown in Table 3.9-10 below.
3.9-19 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.9-10 Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (dBA) at 50 feet Air Compressor 81 Backhoe 80 Compactor 82 Concrete Mixer 85 Concrete Pump 82 Crane, Mobile 83 Dozer 85 Generator 81 Grader 85 Jack Hammer 88 Loader 85 Paver 89 Pile Driver (Impact) 101 Pile Driver (Sonic) 96 Pneumatic Tools 85 Rail Saw 90 Rock Drill 98 Roller 74 Scraper 89 Trucks 74–88 Water Pump 76 Notes: Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. Noise levels listed are manufacture-specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment. Source: FTA 2006
Based on the information provided in Table 3.9-10 and accounting for typical usage factors of individual pieces of equipment and activity types along with typical attenuation rates, on-site construction-related activities could result in hourly average noise levels of approximately 85 dB Leq and 89 dB Lmax at 50 feet. Construction noise levels associated with the implementation of Phase 1 (at either the relocated Auxiliary Building site or the Central Plant) would be approximately 67 dB Leq and 71 dB Lmax at the nearest sensitive receptor (approximately 400 feet to the north and east). Under both conditions (Phase 1 and the HQCMP as a whole), noise levels associated with construction could exceed the applicable exterior daytime noise standard of 55 dBA Leq.
However, Section 8.68.080, “Exemptions,” of the City of Sacramento Municipal Code, exempts construction related noise, provided that all construction activities are performed between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. As stated in the project description, construction activities would be limited to the less noise-sensitive hours (e.g., daytime) between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday,
3.9-20 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
and, thus, consistent with the limitations of the City’s Noise Control Ordinance. Therefore, short-term on-site construction source noise would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards, or a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact 3.9-2: Ground vibration impacts.
Implementation of the HQCMP would not expose sensitive land uses to unacceptable ground vibration levels. Existing sensitive land uses would be located 50 or more feet from the borders of the project site and the project would not introduce new sensitive receptors within the project site. The project would not introduce levels of groundborne vibration associated with construction or operational equipment such that existing sensitive receptors would be affected. This impact would therefore be less than significant.
The project includes the construction and operation new facilities including, but not limited to, a flexible meeting space, a public mobility hub, outdoor community space, and a community energy facility. Construction activities are anticipated to result in the greatest levels of ground vibration from the potential use of blasting to remove unwanted stone and earth material. Sources of ground vibration from operation of the facility include the use of trucks to maintenance equipment to and from the project site, and ground vibration levels from the use of trucks is minimal in comparison to blasting. Therefore, ground vibration from construction related activities is the focus of this analysis.
Construction of the project may result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration and noise, depending on the specific construction equipment used and activities involved. Ground vibration and noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment and activities are summarized in Table 3.9-11. Although a detailed construction equipment list is not currently available, based on the types of construction activities associated with the proposed project (e.g., roadway and facility construction, retaining walls, and parking improvements) and the location of the project site, it is possible that blasting could be required if stone is encountered during construction activities and, therefore, maximum ground vibration and noise levels would be associated with the use of blasting.
Table 3.9-11 Representative Ground Vibration and Noise Levels for Construction Equipment 1 2 Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) Approximate Lv (VdB) at 25 feet Pile Driving 0.644-1.5183 104-1123 Blasting 1.13 109 Large Dozer 0.089 87 Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
3.9-21 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.9-11 Representative Ground Vibration and Noise Levels for Construction Equipment 1 2 Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec) Approximate Lv (VdB) at 25 feet Trucks 0.076 86 Rock Breaker 0.059 83 Jackhammer 0.035 79 Small Dozer 0.003 58 1 Where PPV is the peak particle velocity 2 Where Lv is the root mean square velocity expressed in vibration decibels (VdB), assuming a crest factor of 4. 3 These values demonstrate a range of PPV and VdB associated with typical and upper ranges depending on the equipment used. Source: FTA 2006
According to FTA, pile driving and blasting produces the highest groundborne vibration levels that could result in 1.518 in/sec PPV and 112 VdB and 1.13 in/sec PPV and 109 VdB at 25 feet; however, based on the size and height of proposed structures under the HQCMP, the need for pile driving or blasting is not anticipated. As such, potential groundborne vibration impacts associated with this activity would not occur as a result of project implementation. Construction of the project would likely entail the use of large dozers, drills, trucks, rock breakers, jackhammer, and small dozers.
Caltrans recommends a level of 0.2 in/sec PPV with respect to structural damage and FTA recommends a maximum acceptable level of 80 VdB with respect to human response for residential uses (i.e., annoyance) as nearby residences. The closest sensitive land uses to the project site are 50 or more feet from the edges of the project site.1 The values presented in Table 3.9-11 demonstrate that operation of large dozers, drills, trucks, and rock breakers may exceed the Caltrans and FTA maximum acceptable levels of in/sec PPV and VdB; however, these values represent in/sec PPV and VdB within 25 feet of operational construction equipment. As the project site would not be within 25 feet of sensitive land uses (i.e., 50 feet or more), these values would attenuate accordingly. As such, sensitive receptors would not be expected to experience exposure to 0.2 in/sec PPV or 80 VdB as a result of project implementation. Thus, implementation of the project would not result in the exposure of existing off-site sensitive receptors to excessive ground vibration levels. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
1 The childcare center would not be retained in its current location on-site as part of the HQCMP, and as such, is not treated as a sensitive receptor potentially subject to project-related vibration.
3.9-22 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Impact 3.9-3: Operational stationary source noise impacts.
Operation of land uses under the HQCMP would not generate noise levels that exceed the noise standards established by the City of Sacramento Noise Control Ordinance. This impact would therefore be less than significant.
Implementation of the HQCMP would entail the continued and expanded operations of the existing Headquarters campus and Central Plant (modernized as part of Phase 1). Operational sources of noise generated by these facilities and future facilities (i.e., a flexible meeting space, a public mobility hub, outdoor community space, and a community energy facility) constructed over the course of the project’s 20-year buildout would include stationary sources such as rooftop heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems for office and commercial development.
Large HVAC systems associated with this kind of development can result in noise levels that average between 50 and 65 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. As 24-hour CNEL noise levels are, on average, about 6.7 dBA greater than 24-hour Leq measurements, this means that the HVAC equipment associated with office and commercial buildings could generate community noise levels that average between 57 to 72 dBA CNEL at 50 feet when the equipment is operating constantly over 24 hours. However, Section 8.68.060 of the City’s Noise Control Ordinance prohibits locating stationary mechanical equipment such as HVAC systems adjacent to residential uses unless it complies with the exterior noise standards found in Section 8.68.060 of the City’s Municipal Code (Table 3.9-6 of this Draft EIR). Compliance with Section 8.68.060 would involve providing for shielding and placing the HVAC systems within wells on the roofs of buildings in order to ensure that the new systems would not exceed the standards set forth in Section 8.68.060 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Implementation of the HQCMP could also involve an increase in the delivery of equipment required to maintain the aforementioned facilities currently located on the project site. Two noise sources would be associated with delivery operations: the noise of the diesel engines of the delivery trucks and the backup beeper alarm that sounds when a truck is put in reverse, as is required and regulated by Cal-OSHA. The noise generated by idling diesel engines typically ranges between 64 and 66 dBA Leq at 75 feet. This noise would be temporary in nature, typically lasting no more than five minutes. Backup beepers are required by Cal-OSHA to be at least 5 dBA above ambient noise levels. These devices are highly directional in nature, and when in reverse the trucks and the beeper alarm would be directed towards the loading area and adjacent commercial structures. Backup beepers are intended to warn persons who are behind the vehicle when it is backing up.
Deployment of the HQCMP would occur over the course of 20 years and would be required to comply with the exterior noise standards set forth in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance. Further, given that the project site contains existing operational noise sources similar to those of future facilities constructed during the project’s buildout, it would not be expected that operational noise levels would be generated
3.9-23 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 that exceed the existing operational baseline for nearby sensitive receptors. As such, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact 3.9-4: Operational traffic noise impacts.
Additional operational traffic levels associated with the project site would not introduce a substantial level of noise (i.e., 3-5 dB) to the project site. This impact would therefore be less than significant.
Project implementation would result in an increase in average daily traffic volumes on affected roadway segments and, potentially, an increase in traffic source noise levels. Generally, a doubling of a noise source is required to result in an increase of 3 dB, which is perceived as barely noticeable by humans (Egan 2007:21). The Sacramento County Noise Ordinance establishes a 5 dB increase in a noise sources as a substantial noise increase for existing transportation noise levels of less than 60 dB, 3 dB increase for existing noise levels between 60-65 dB, and 1.5 dB for existing noise levels greater than 65 dB. Thus, in regards to traffic noise specifically, an increase in dB levels exceeding these standards would be considered substantial.
The project would be expected to generate an additional 2,586 employee-related daily vehicle trips to the project site as compared to existing conditions. During the peak hours, the project would increase vehicle trips by 299 and 307 during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. To assess this impact, roadway noise levels during the PM peak hour, which represents the greater increase in vehicle trips, under existing no project and plus project conditions, for affected roadway segments. Table 3.9-12 summarizes the modeled traffic noise levels at 100 feet from the roadway centerlines under existing no project and existing plus project conditions along with the overall net change. As shown in Table 3.9-12, project implementation would result in a maximum increase of 0.8 dB along S Street between 59th and 65th streets, which currently exhibits noise levels of 61.1 dB.
Table 3.9-12 Summary of Modeled Traffic Noise Levels under Existing No Project and Existing Plus Project Conditions
CNEL/Ldn (dB) at 100 feet from Roadway Centerline Net Change Roadway Segment Existing (No Project) Existing (Plus Project) (dB) Conditions (dB) Conditions (dB) 59th St between T St and S St 62.0 62.1 0.1 59th St between Folsom Blvd and S St 62.1 62.0 -0.11 S St between 59th St and 65th St 61.1 61.9 0.8 Folsom Blvd between 59th St and 65th St 63.8 64.5 0.7 65th St between 4th Ave and US 50 66.7 66.7 0.0
3.9-24 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.9-12 Summary of Modeled Traffic Noise Levels under Existing No Project and Existing Plus Project Conditions
CNEL/Ldn (dB) at 100 feet from Roadway Centerline Net Change Roadway Segment Existing (No Project) Existing (Plus Project) (dB) Conditions (dB) Conditions (dB) Eastbound Ramps 65th St between US 50 Westbound Ramps 64.8 64.9 0.1 and Q St 65th St between Q St and Folsom Blvd 64.8 64.9 0.1 Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; dB = A-weighted decibels; Ldn = day-night average noise level 1 Decrease in roadway noise along 59th Street is attributed to redistribution of existing SMUD uses from facilities located west of 59th Street to HQCMP project site. Refer to Appendix D for detailed modeling input data and output results. Source: Data modeled by Ascent Environmental, Inc. 2017 using FHWA Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD- 77-108) (FHWA 1978).
The increase in roadway volumes along S Street represents the greatest increase in traffic volume, and thus traffic noise, due to employees accessing the project site from that area. As shown by the modeling below, the additional trips as a result of implementation of the HQCMP would not result in substantial increases (i.e., 5 dB or greater for existing noise levels of 60 dB or below, 3 dB for existing noise levels of 60-65 dB, and 1.5 dB or greater for noise levels of 65 dB or above) in traffic noise on affected roadways. This is primarily due to the fact that existing traffic volumes are relatively high and the additional trips would be a minimal increase in comparison to existing traffic volumes. Thus, increases in traffic as a result of the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project with regard to the long-term exposure of existing sensitive receptors to project-generated operational-related increases in traffic source noise levels. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
3.9-25 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
3.9-26 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.10 Transportation and Circulation
This chapter includes a detailed analysis of the transportation and circulation system in the vicinity of the Headquarters Campus and future conditions associated with implementation of the HQCMP. The analysis includes project trip generation, project trip distribution, and impacts to the roadway, transit, bicycle and pedestrian components of the overall transportation system with and without the project. Modeling results related to the assessment of transportation impacts are included as Appendix E.
Regulatory Setting
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the City of Sacramento (City) have regulatory authority over the transportation network in the project area. Caltrans has jurisdiction over the State highway system and the City provides regulations within Sacramento. An overview of the transportation and circulation plans, policies, regulations, and laws applicable to the project is provided below.
Federal
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to transportation and circulation are applicable to the HQCMP.
State
Caltrans Guide for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies
The Caltrans Guide for Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies states:
Caltrans endeavors to maintain a target level of service (LOS) at the transition between LOS C and LOS D on State highway facilities, however, Caltrans acknowledges that this may not always be feasible and recommends that the lead agency consult with Caltrans to determine the appropriate target LOS. If an existing State highway facility is operating at less than the appropriate target LOS, the existing MOE (measures of effectiveness) should be maintained (Caltrans 2002).
United State Route 50 Transportation Concept Report and Corridor System Management Plan In 2014, Caltrans released the United States Route 50 Transportation Concept Report and Corridor System Management Plan for portions of U.S. Highway 50 (US 50) within the study area. Table 13 of this report shows existing operations on US 50 as being at LOS F (Caltrans 2014). The report also indicates a Concept LOS E for this corridor.
Page 3.10-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The above-referenced Caltrans LOS results are based on daily volume-to-capacity comparisons and do not necessarily consider specific operational characteristics (e.g., length of weave sections, peak hour factors, etc.) within the US 50 corridor. Nevertheless, these data are valuable in understanding Caltrans’ expectations of their current and projected operating performance.
Senate Bill 743 Senate Bill (SB) 743, passed in 2013, requires the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new CEQA guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, “automobile delay, as described solely by level of service or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” OPR has submitted updated CEQA Guidelines to the State Natural Resources Agency for formal rulemaking to implement SB 743. The guidelines indicate that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) be the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts and local agencies will have an opt-in period of approximately two years following the completion of the rulemaking process.
Regional
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) is responsible for the preparation of, and updates to, the 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) and the corresponding Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) for the six-county Sacramento region (SACOG 2016). The MTP/SCS provides a 20-year transportation vision and corresponding list of projects. The MTIP identifies short-term projects (7-year horizon) in more detail. The current MTP/SCS was adopted by the SACOG board in 2016.
Local
City of Sacramento General Plan On March 3, 2015, the City of Sacramento City Council adopted the 2035 General Plan. The Mobility Element of the City of Sacramento’s 2035 General Plan outlines goals and policies that coordinate the transportation and circulation system with planned land uses. The following LOS policies are relevant to this study:
Mobility Goal M1.1: Comprehensive Transportation System. Provide a multimodal transportation system that supports the social, economic and environmental vision, goals, and objectives of the City, and is effectively planned, funded managed, operated, and maintained.
Page 3.10-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Policy M1.1.1: Right-of-Ways. The City shall preserve and manage rights-of-way consistent with: the circulation diagram, the City Street Design Standards, the goal to provide Complete Streets as described in Goal M4.2, and the modal priorities for each street segment and intersection established in Policy M4.4.1: Roadway Network Development, Street Typology System.
• Policy M1.1.2: Transportation Network. The City shall manage the travel system to ensure safe operating conditions.
• Policy M1.1.3: Emergency Services. The City shall prioritize emergency service needs when developing transportation plans and making transportation network changes.
• Policy M1.1.4: Facilities and Infrastructure. The City shall effectively operate and maintain transportation facilities and infrastructure to preserve the quality of the system.
Goal M1.2: Multimodal System. Increase multimodal accessibility (i.e., the ability to complete desired personal or economic transactions via a range of transportation modes and routes) throughout the city and region with an emphasis on walking, bicycling, and riding transit.
• Policy M1.2.1: Multimodal Choices. The City shall develop an integrated, multimodal transportation system that improves the attractiveness of walking, bicycling, and riding transit over time to increase travel choices and aid in achieving a more balanced transportation system and reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Policy M1.2.2: Level of Service (LOS) Standard. The City shall implement a flexible context-sensitive Level of Service (LOS) standard and will measure traffic operations against the vehicle LOS thresholds established in this policy. The City will measure Vehicle LOS based on the methodology contained in the latest version of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) published by the Transportation Research Board. The City’s specific vehicle LOS thresholds have been defined based on community values with respect to modal priorities, land use context, economic development, and environmental resources and constraints. As such, the City has established variable LOS thresholds appropriate for the unique characteristics of the City’s diverse neighborhoods and communities. The City will strive to operate the roadway network at LOS D or better for vehicles during typical weekday AM and PM peak- hour conditions with the following exceptions described below.
A. Core Area (Central City Community Plan Area) – LOS F allowed.
B. Priority Investment Areas – LOS F allowed (the 65th North Priority Investment Area is relevant to this study, as shown below in Exhibit 3.10-1 from Figure 8-5 of the City of Sacramento General Plan).
Page 3.10-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 3.10-1 Priority Investment Areas in the Vicinity of the Project Site
Page 3.10-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
C. LOS E Roadways – LOS E is allowed for the following roadways because expansion of the roadways would cause undesirable impacts or conflict with other community values. (11 segments are included, the following is relevant to this study).
65th Street: Elvas Avenue to 14th Avenue, and
LOS E is also allowed on all roadway segments and associated intersections located within ½ mile walking distance of light rail stations.
D. Other LOS F Roadways – LOS F is allowed for the following roadways (up to the identified volume/capacity ratio shown below) because expansion of the roadways would cause undesirable impacts or conflict with other community values. (24 segments are included; the following is relevant to this study).
Folsom Boulevard: 47th Street to 65th Street
E. If maintaining the above LOS standards would, in the City’s judgment be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other goals, LOS E or F conditions may be accepted provided that provisions are made to improve the overall system, promote non-vehicular transportation, and/or implement vehicle trip reduction measures as part of a development project or a city-initiated project. Additionally, the City shall not expand the physical capacity of the planned roadway network to accommodate a project beyond that identified in Figure M4 and M4a (2035 General Plan Roadway Classification and Lanes).
• Policy M1.2.3: Transportation Evaluation. The City shall evaluate discretionary projects for potential impacts to traffic operations, traffic safety, transit service, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities, consistent with the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines.
• Policy M1.2.4: Multimodal Access. The City shall facilitate the provision of multimodal access to activity centers such as commercial centers and corridors, employment centers, transit stops/stations, airports, schools, parks, recreation areas, medical centers, and tourist attractions.
Goal M1.3: Barrier Removal. Improve accessibility and system connectivity by removing physical and operational barriers to safe travel.
• Policy M1.3.1: Grid Network. To promote efficient travel for all modes, the City shall require all new residential, commercial, or mixed-use development that proposes or is required to construct or extend streets to develop a transportation network that is well-connected, both internally and to off-site networks preferably with a grid or modified grid-form.
Page 3.10-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The City shall require private developments (to provide internal complete streets (see Goal M4.2) that connect to the existing roadway system.
• Policy M1.3.2: Eliminate Gaps. The City shall eliminate “gaps” in roadways, bikeways, and pedestrian networks. To this end:
A. The City shall construct new multi-modal crossings of the Sacramento and American Rivers.
B. The City shall plan and pursue funding to construct grade-separated crossings of freeways, rail lines, canals, creeks, and other barriers to improve connectivity.
C. The City shall construct new bikeways and pedestrian paths in existing neighborhoods to improve connectivity.
• Policy M1.3.3: Improve Transit Access. The City shall support the Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT) in addressing identified gaps in public transit networks by working with SacRT to appropriately locate passenger facilities and stations, pedestrian walkways and bicycle access to transit stations and stops, and public rights of way as necessary for transit-only lanes, transit stops, and transit vehicle stations and layover.
• Policy M1.3.4: Barrier Removal for Accessibility. The City shall remove barriers, where feasible, to allow people of all abilities to move freely and efficiently throughout the city.
• Policy M1.3.5: Connections to Transit Stations. The City shall provide and improve connections to transit stations by identifying, roadways, bikeways and pedestrian improvements within a walking distance (½ mile) of existing and planned transit stations. Such improvements shall emphasize the development of complete streets.
• Policy M1.3.6: Multi-Jurisdictional Transportation Corridors. The City shall work with adjacent jurisdictions and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) to identify existing and future transportation corridors that should be linked across jurisdictional boundaries to provide desired upstream and downstream traffic operations and to preserve sufficient right-of-way.
• Policy M1.3.7: Regional Transportation Planning. The City shall continue to actively participate in Sacramento Area Council of Government’s (SACOG’s) regional transportation planning efforts to coordinate priorities with neighboring jurisdictions and continue to work with all local transit providers and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) on transportation planning, operations, and funding.
Goal M1.4: Transportation Demand Management. Reduce reliance on the private automobile.
Page 3.10-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Policy M1.4.1: Increase Vehicle Occupancy. The City shall work with a broad range of agencies (e.g., SACOG, SMAQMD, SacRT, Caltrans) to encourage and support programs that increase regional average vehicle occupancy, including the provision of traveler information, shuttles, preferential parking for carpools/vanpools, transit pass subsidies, road and parking pricing, and other methods.
• Policy M1.4.2: Automobile Commute Trip Reduction. The City shall encourage developers to reduce the number of single-occupant vehicle commute trips to their sites by enforcing the existing trip reduction ordinance in the City Code.
• Policy M1.4.3: Transportation Management Associations. The City shall encourage commercial, retail, and residential developments to participate in or create Transportation Management Associations to reduce single-occupant vehicle trips.
• Policy M1.4.4: Off-Peak Deliveries. The City shall encourage business owners to schedule deliveries at off-peak traffic periods.
Goal M1.5: Emerging Technologies and Services. Use emerging transportation technologies and services to increase transportation system efficiency.
• Policy M1.5.1: Facilities for Emerging Technologies. The City shall assist in the provision of support facilities such as advanced fueling stations (e.g., electric and hydrogen) for emerging technologies.
• Policy M1.5.2: Use of Public Rights-of-Way. The City shall provide for the use of public rights-of-way, at transit stations and major activity centers, where appropriate for emerging technology support facilities such as advanced fueling stations.
• Policy M1.5.3: Public-Private Transportation Partnerships. The City shall cooperate with public-private transportation partnerships (such as car sharing companies) to establish programs within the City that support the goals and policies of the General Plan.
• Policy M1.5.4: Regional Emissions Reductions. The City shall support its partner agencies in their efforts to remove gross polluters from the regional vehicle fleet.
• Policy M1.5.5: Support Zero- and Low-Emission Vehicle Adoption. The City shall continue to collaborate with its State and regional partners to support rapid adoption of zero-emissions and low-emission vehicles, including standardizing infrastructure and regulations for public electric vehicle charging stations, streamlining the permit- process for private electric vehicle charging stations (including home charging stations), developing guidelines and standards for dedicated and preferential parking for zero- and low-emissions vehicles (including charging stations for plug-in-electric vehicles, where necessary).
Page 3.10-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Policy M1.5.6: Support State Highway Expansion. The City shall support State highway expansion and management plans consistent with the SACOG MTP/SCS.
• Policy M1.5.7: Freeway Improvement Coordination. The City shall work with Caltrans and adjacent jurisdictions to identify funding for improvements that address cumulative effects of planned development on the freeway system.
Goal M2.1: Integrated Pedestrian System. Design, construct, and maintain a universally accessible, safe, convenient, integrated and well-connected pedestrian system that promotes walking.
Goal M3.1: Safe, Comprehensive, and Integrated Transit System. Create and maintain a safe, comprehensive, and integrated transit system as an essential component of a multimodal transportation system.
Goal M4.1: Street and Roadway System. Create a context-sensitive street and roadway system that provides access to all users and recognizes the importance that roads and streets play as public space. As such, the City shall strive to balance the needs for personal travel, goods movement, parking, social activities, business activities, and revenue generation, when planning, operating, maintaining, and expanding the roadway network.
• Policy M4.1.1: Emergency Access. The City shall develop a roadway system that is redundant (i.e., includes multiple alternative routes) to the extent feasible to ensure mobility in the event of emergencies.
• Policy M4.1.2: Balancing Community, Social, Environmental, and Economic Goals. The City shall evaluate and strive to address community, environmental, and citywide economic development goals when adding or modifying streets, roads, bridges, and other public rights-of-way.
• Policy M4.1.3: Community Outreach. The City shall conduct public outreach to community organizations and members of the general public in corridor planning early in the project development process to identify feasible opportunities to provide community benefits and to lessen any potential impacts of modifications to local streets and roadways.
• Policy M4.1.4: Partnerships with Other Agencies. The City shall work with Caltrans, SACOG, Sacramento County, and other agencies to inspect and maintain bridge facilities.
• Policy M4.1.6: Roundabouts. Where feasible, the City shall consider roundabouts as an intersection traffic control option with demonstrated air quality, safety, and mobility benefits.
Page 3.10-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Goal M4.2: Complete Streets. The City shall plan, design, operate and maintain all streets and roadways to accommodate and promote safe and convenient travel for all users – pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and persons of all abilities, as well as freight and motor vehicle drivers.
• Policy M4.2.1: Accommodate All Users. The City shall ensure that all new roadway projects and any reconstruction projects designate sufficient travel space for all users including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and motorists except where pedestrians and bicyclists are prohibited by law from using a given facility.
• Policy M4.2.2: Pedestrian and Bicycle-Friendly Streets. In areas with high levels of pedestrian activity (e.g., employment centers, residential areas, mixed-use areas, schools), the City shall ensure that all street projects support pedestrian and bicycle travel. Improvements may include narrow lanes, target speeds less than 35 miles per hour, sidewalk widths consistent with the Pedestrian Master Plan, street trees, high-visibility pedestrian crossings, and bikeways (e.g. Class II and III bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, separated bicycle lanes and/or parallel multi-use pathways).
• Policy M4.2.4: Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities on Bridges. The City shall identify existing and new bridges that can be built, widened, or restriped to add pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities.
• Policy M4.2.5: Multi-Modal Corridors. Consistent with the Roadway Network and Street Typologies established in this General Plan, the City shall designate multi- modal corridors in the Central City, within and between urban centers, along major transit lines, and/or along commercial corridors appropriate for comprehensive multimodal corridor planning and targeted investment in transit, bikeway, and pedestrian path improvements if discretionary funds become available.
• Policy M4.2.6: Identify and Fill Gaps in Complete Streets. The City shall identify streets that can be made more “complete” either through a reduction in the number or width of travel lanes or through two-way conversions, with consideration for emergency vehicle operations. The City shall consider including new bikeways, sidewalks, on-street parking, and exclusive transit lanes on these streets by re- arranging and/or re-allocating how the available space within the public right of way issued. All new street configurations shall provide for adequate emergency vehicle operation.
Goal M4.3: Neighborhood Traffic. Enhance the quality of life within existing neighborhoods through the use of neighborhood traffic management and traffic calming techniques, while recognizing the City’s desire to provide a grid system that creates a high level of connectivity.
Page 3.10-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Goal M4.4: Roadway Functional Classification and Street Typology. Maintain an interconnected system of streets that allows travel on multiple routes by multiple modes, balancing access, mobility and place-making functions with sensitivity to the existing and planned land use context of each corridor and major street segment.
Goal M5.1: Integrated Bicycle System. Create and maintain a safe, comprehensive, and integrated bicycle system and set of support facilities throughout the city that encourage bicycling that is accessible to all. Provide bicycle facilities, programs and services and implement other transportation and land use policies as necessary to achieve the City’s bicycle mode share goal as documented in the Bicycle Master Plan.
Goal M6.1: Managed Parking. Provide and manage parking such that it balances the citywide goals of economic development, livable neighborhoods, sustainability, and public safety with the compact multi-modal urban environment prescribed by the General Plan.
Goal M7.1: Safe Movement of Goods. Provide for the safe and efficient movement of goods to support commerce while maintaining livability in the city and region.
Goal M9.1: Transportation Funding. Provide sufficient funding to construct, maintain, and operate transportation facilities and services needed to achieve the City’s mobility goals.
Environmental Setting
This section describes the existing transportation network in the project area and serves as the baseline scenario upon which project-specific impacts are evaluated. The baseline for this study represents conditions based on data collection and field observations conducted in December 2016. The environmental setting for transportation includes baseline descriptions for roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities.
Project Study Area
The study area was determined based on the project’s expected travel characteristics (including number of vehicle trips and directionality of those trips), primary travel routes to/from the project vicinity, project driveways and parking locations, mode split, and other considerations. Exhibit 3.10-2 shows the study area, project site, and 11 study intersections selected for analysis. The study area also includes bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities in the project vicinity.
Page 3.10-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 3.10-2 Study Area
Page 3.10-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Study Intersections 1. 59th Street / T Street 2. 59th Street / S Street / US 50 Ramps 3. Folsom Boulevard / 59th Street 4. 65th Street / Elvas Avenue 5. 65th Street / Folsom Boulevard 6. 65th Street / Q Street 7. 65th Street / S Street / US 50 WB Ramps 8. 65th Street / US 50 EB Ramps 9. 65th Street / 4th Avenue 10. 65th Street / Broadway 11. 65th Street / 8th Avenue
Roadway Network The following key roadways within the study area would serve trips associated with the proposed project:
• 59th Street is a two-lane north-south arterial and forms the western edge of the project site. 59th Street runs north to its terminus at Folsom Boulevard, and south into the Tahoe Park neighborhood until its terminus at Broadway. Motorists may use 59th Street to access ramps for US 50. In the study area, the speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Sidewalks exist on both sides of the roadway, and bicycle lanes exist north of S Street. Light rail tracks intersect 59th Street at an at-grade crossing 400 feet north of S Street.
• 65th Street is a four-lane north-south arterial and forms the eastern edge of the project site. 65th Street runs north to its terminus at Elvas Avenue in East Sacramento, and south to its terminus at Florin Road in Florin. Motorists traveling to and from the project site may utilize 65th Street to access US 50 ramps, particularly the eastbound on-ramp and westbound off-ramp that are not provided at the 59th Street interchange. In the study area, the speed limit is 30 miles per hour between Elvas Avenue and Q Street, and 40 miles per hour south of Q Street. Sidewalks exist on both sides of the roadway, and bicycle lanes exist between Elvas Avenue to near 4th Avenue. Light rail tracks intersect 65th Street at an at-grade crossing immediately adjacent to Q Street.
• Elvas Avenue is a two to four-lane northwest-southeast collector, located to the north of the project site. Elvas Avenue runs northwest to its terminus at Lanatt Street where it transitions into C Street, and southeast to its terminus at Folsom Boulevard.
Page 3.10-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
In the study area, the speed limit is 40 miles per hour. Sidewalks exist on both sides of the roadway. Bicycle lanes exist between 62nd and 64th streets.
• Folsom Boulevard is an east-west arterial and forms the northern edge of the project site. In the study area, Folsom Boulevard is four lanes between 59th Street and 65th Street with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Folsom Boulevard runs west as it transitions to Capitol Avenue in Midtown Sacramento, and east to Folsom. In the study area, sidewalks exist on the north side of the roadway and intermittently on the south side of the roadway.
• S Street is a two-lane east-west collector and forms the southern edge of the project site. S Street runs west to the US 50 / 59th Street ramps, and east to the US 50 / 65th Street ramps. The speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Sidewalks exist on the north side of the roadway, and on the south side of the roadway from the SMUD Headquarters Building to 65th Street. Curbside parking exists along both sides of the roadway.
• T Street is a two-lane collector to the west of 59th Street, and local roadway to the east of 59th Street. The roadway is located south of the project site. T Street runs west to Downtown Sacramento, and east to its transition to Kroy Way in the Tahoe Park neighborhood. In the study area, the speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Sidewalks exist on south side of the roadway. Bicycle lanes exist along the corridor.
• Broadway is a two-lane east-west arterial in the study area, located south of the project site. Broadway runs west to the Land Park neighborhood, and east to its terminus at 65th Street. In the study area, the speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Sidewalks exist on both sides of the roadway.
Traffic Data Collection
Traffic counts were collected at the study intersections and existing Headquarters Campus driveways on Wednesday, December 7, 2016 during the AM (7-9) and PM (4- 6) peak periods. During all counts, weather conditions were generally dry, no unusual traffic patterns were observed, and the Sacramento City Unified School District and California State University, Sacramento were in full session. Field observations of the light rail crossings and of vehicle queuing in the study area was also recorded.
Study Periods
Based on the traffic data collection, the AM peak hour within the study area occurred from 7:30 to 8:30, and the PM peak hour occurred from 4:30 to 5:30.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 3.10-3 displays the existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, traffic controls, and lane configurations at the study intersections. Exhibit 3.10-4 shows the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes at the existing campus driveways.
Page 3.10-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 3.10-3 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Page 3.10-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 3.10-4 Existing Peak Hour Driveway Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Page 3.10-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Existing Traffic Conditions
Traffic operations at all study intersections were analyzed under weekday AM and PM peak hour conditions using procedures and methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual for calculating delay at intersections (Transportation Research Board 2010). These methodologies were applied using the SimTraffic software program, which considers the effects of lane utilization, turn pocket storage lengths, upstream/downstream queue spillbacks, coordinated signal timings, pedestrian crossing activity, and other conditions on intersection and overall corridor operations. Use of SimTraffic microsimulation analysis is appropriate given the presence of coordinated signal timing plans, close spacing of signalized intersections, and overall levels of traffic and peak hour congestion within the study area. Reported results are based on an average of 10 runs. The following procedures and assumptions were applied in the development of the SimTraffic model:
• Roadway geometric data were gathered using aerial photographs and field observations.
• Peak hour traffic volumes were entered into the model according to the peak hour of the study area.
• The peak hour factor was set at 1.0 in accordance with City of Sacramento Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.
• The counted pedestrian and bicycle volumes were entered into the model according to the peak hour measurements.
• Signal phasing and timings were based on existing signal timing plans provided by the City of Sacramento and field observations.
• Speeds for the model network were based on the posted speed limits.
Intersection Level of Service Definitions Each study intersection was analyzed using the concept of LOS. LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions whereby a letter grade, from A (the best) to F (the worst), is assigned. These grades represent the perspective of drivers and are an indication of the comfort and convenience associated with driving. In general, LOS A represents free-flow conditions with no congestion, and LOS F represents severe congestion and delay under stop-and-go conditions. Table 3.10-1 displays the delay range associated with each LOS category for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Page 3.10-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.10-1 Intersection Level of Service Definitions Average Delay Level of (Seconds/Vehicle) Description (for Signalized Intersections) Service Signalized Unsignalized Intersections Intersections Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic A < 10.0 < 10.0 signal progression and/or short cycle lengths. Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or B > 10.0 to 20.0 > 10.0 to 15.0 short cycle lengths. Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression C and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to > 20.0 to 35.0 > 15.0 to 25.0 appear. Operations with longer delays due to a combination of D unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios. > 35.0 to 55.0 > 25.0 to 35.0 Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, and long cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures are frequent E > 55.0 to 80.0 > 35.0 to 50.0 occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring F due to over-saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle > 80.0 > 50.0 lengths. Note: LOS = level of service; V/C ratio= volume-to-capacity ratio LOS at signalized intersections based on average delay for all vehicles. LOS at unsignalized intersections is reported for entire intersection and for minor street movement with greatest delay. Source: Transportation Research Board 2010
Existing Intersection Operations Table 3.10-2 displays the existing peak hour intersection operations at the study intersections.
Table 3.10-2 Intersection Operations – Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Delay1 LOS AM 27 C 1. 59th Street / T Street Signal PM 13 B AM 40 D 2. 59th Street / S Street / US 50 Ramps Signal PM 34 C AM 19 B 3. Folsom Boulevard / 59th Street Signal PM 16 B AM 20 B 4. 65th Street / Elvas Avenue Signal PM 16 B AM 31 C 5. 65th Street / Folsom Boulevard Signal PM 75 E
Page 3.10-17 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.10-2 Intersection Operations – Existing Conditions Existing Conditions Intersection Traffic Control Peak Hour Delay1 LOS AM 18 B 6. 65th Street / Q Street Signal PM 53 D AM 38 D 7. 65th Street / S Street / US 50 WB Ramps Signal PM 48 D AM 13 B 8. 65th Street / US 50 EB Ramps Signal PM 10 A AM 21 C 9. 65th Street / 4th Avenue Signal PM 22 C AM 36 D 10. 65th Street / Broadway Signal PM 27 C AM 4 (10) A (A) 11. 65th Street / 8th Avenue SSSC PM 2 (22) A (C) Notes: LOS = Level of Service. SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Controlled 1 For signalized intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches. For SSSC intersections, the LOS and control delay for the worst movement is shown in parentheses next to the average intersection LOS and delay. Impacts to intersections are determined based on the overall LOS and average delay. Intersection LOS and delay is calculated based on the procedures and methodology contained in the HCM 2010 (Transportation Research Board, 2010). All intersections were analyzed in SimTraffic. Source: Modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2017
As shown, all but one of the study intersections currently operate at LOS D or better under both peak hours, which can be characterized as operating efficiently. During the PM peak hour, the intersection of 65th Street and Folsom Boulevard operates at LOS E because of the high amount of conflicting traffic and added delay attributed to the nearby at-grade light rail crossing; this causes most of the queuing to occur in the westbound left turn movement. The intersections of 65th Street at Q Street and 65th Street at S Street/US 50 Westbound Ramps operate at LOS D because of the high demand of off-ramp traffic conflicting with northbound and southbound through traffic, as well as the close proximity to the light rail train crossing.
Existing Vehicle Miles Traveled
VMT is a new metric for identifying transportation impacts (as required under SB 743 and discussed previously), which seeks to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Existing daily Headquarters Campus VMT is first presented as a baseline for assessing how the project will change VMT for employees of the campus. Table 3.10-3 displays the existing Headquarters Campus daily VMT, and the average daily VMT per employee. The existing VMT generated by the Headquarters Campus was estimated using the most recent version of the SACMET regional travel demand model, developed and maintained by SACOG. The existing Headquarters Campus was input into the SACMET base year (2012) travel demand model, which was refined to improve the
Page 3.10-18 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
calibration of the model within the study area. The model was run, and all trips to/from the traffic analysis zones representing the existing campus were tracked throughout the model. The model estimated that the existing campus generates 31,491 daily VMT, which equates to an average of 22.49 VMT per employee.
Table 3.10-3 Existing Headquarters Campus Generated VMT Campus Generated Campus Campus Description Scenario Daily Vehicle Daily VMT Employees Daily VMT Trips per Employee Existing Headquarters Existing Conditions 1,400 4,334 31,491 22.49 Campus Notes: Headquarters Campus generated VMT is all VMT associated with trips having an origin or destination at the campus. Source: Modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2017
Existing daily project influence area VMT is also presented as a baseline for assessing how the project will change VMT for the area surrounding the campus. Table 3.10-4 presents the existing daily VMT and average daily VMT per service population (total residents and employees) in the influence area of the Headquarters Campus (i.e., the extent to where the Headquarters Campus influences VMT on the surrounding roadway network). The influence area for the Headquarters Campus corresponds to roughly a 7- mile buffer around the project site. The refined SACMET base year travel demand model was used to determine the VMT influence area of the project. Then, all trips to/from the traffic analysis zones representing this VMT influence area were tracked throughout the model. As shown the model estimates that the existing influence area generates 23,013,081 daily VMT, which equates to an average of 24.05 VMT per service population.
Table 3.10-4 Existing Influence Area Generated VMT Influence Area Influence Area Generated Daily VMT per Scenario Service Daily Vehicle Residents Employees Daily VMT Service Population Trips Population Existing 595,430 361,652 957,082 4,541,710 23,013,081 24.05 Conditions Notes: Influence Area generated VMT is all the VMT associated with trips having an origin or destination in the VMT influence area. Source: Modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2017
Existing Transit Facilities SacRT provides light rail transit and bus service throughout Sacramento County, including on and within the vicinity of the Headquarters Campus. Existing transit facilities near the SMUD campus, including light rail stops and routes, and bus stops and routes, are shown in Exhibit 3.10-5.
Page 3.10-19 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 3.10-5 Existing Transit Facilities
Page 3.10-20 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
SacRT Gold Line light rail service is available at the 59th Street Station located just north of the western side of the campus, and at the University/65th Street Station located just east of the campus. The Gold Line serves 14 stations in communities between downtown Sacramento and Folsom. Gold Line trips are available throughout the day on weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service schedules. Gold Line schedule information is summarized in Table 3.10-5.
Table 3.10-5 Gold Line Schedule Summary Weekday Saturday Sunday Segment Frequency Frequency Frequency Span Span Span (min) (min) (min) Sacramento Valley Station 4 AM – 5 AM – 5 AM – 15 30 30 to Sunrise Station 12 AM 12 AM 11 PM Sunrise Station to 5 AM – 7 AM – 10 AM – 30 30 30 Historic Folsom Station 7 PM 7 PM 7 PM Source: Sacramento Regional Transit 2018
Average weekday Gold Line ridership at the 59th Street and the University/65th Street Stations is summarized in Table 3.10-6. As shown, the University/65th Street Station is far more utilized than the 59th Street Station.
Table 3.10-6 Gold Line Light Rail Average Weekday Ridership AM Peak Midday PM Peak Other Weekday Total Weekday Station (6 AM – 9 AM) (9 AM to 3:30 PM) (3:30 to 6 PM) (<6 AM or > 6 PM) On Off On Off On Off On Off On Off 59th Street 68 69 88 80 83 79 32 24 271 252 University/65th Street 320 352 658 684 292 414 251 237 1,521 1,687 Source: Sacramento Regional Transit 2016
Several SacRT bus stops are located within close proximity to the SMUD campus, connecting to the University/65th Street light rail station. A few bus routes operate nearby the campus with limited schedules oriented around local school start and end times. Table 3.10-7 summarizes bus route schedule information for those operating within the vicinity of SMUD campus.
Table 3.10-7 SacRT Bus Route Schedule Summary Weekday Saturday Sunday Route Frequency Frequency Frequency Span Span Span (min) (min) (min) 26 – Fulton 6:00 AM– 8:30 AM – 8:30 AM – 30 60 60 (Watt/I-80-University/65th St) 7:30 PM 6:45 PM 6:30 PM 38 – P/Q Streets 6:30 AM – 7:45 AM – 8:00 AM – (University/65th St-Downtown-River 60 60 60 9:00 PM 8:30 PM 6:30 PM Oaks)
Page 3.10-21 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.10-7 SacRT Bus Route Schedule Summary Weekday Saturday Sunday Route Frequency Frequency Frequency Span Span Span (min) (min) (min) 61 – Fruitridge 5:45 AM – 60 N/A N/A N/A N/A (University/65th St – Land Park) 9:30 PM 65 – Franklin-65th St 6:15 AM – 60 N/A N/A N/A N/A (Franklin Station-University/65th St) 8:00 PM 81- Florin-65th St 5:15 AM– 6:15 AM – 6:15 AM – (Florin Towne Centre- 30 30 60 10:30 PM 10:30 PM 9:00 PM University/65th St) 82 – Howe-65th St 5:15 AM– 6:15 AM – 7:15 AM – (A.R.C.–C.S.U.S.–University/65th 30 60 60 10:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:00 PM St) 87 – Howe 6:00 AM– 6:15 AM – 7:30 AM – 30 60 60 (University/65th St-Marconi/Arcade) 8:30 PM 9:30 PM 7:00 PM 210 – La Riviera Dr 1 AM Trip, 7:30 AM, N/A N/A N/A N/A (Alhambra/J) 1 PM Trip 2:45 PM 7:30 AM, 211 – College Greens 1 AM Trip, 2:45 PM, N/A N/A N/A N/A (Alhambra/J) 2 PM Trips 3:15 PM 212 – 14th Ave & 21st Ave 1 AM Trip, 7:15 AM, N/A N/A N/A N/A (N/Rodeo) 1 PM Trip 3:15 PM 213 – Fruitridge Rd & Stockton Blvd 1 AM Trip, 7:45 AM, N/A N/A N/A N/A (N/Rodeo) 1 PM Trip 3:15 PM 214 – Broadway & Stockton Blvd 1 AM Trip, 7:30 AM, N/A N/A N/A N/A (N/Rodeo) 1 PM Trip 3:15 PM Note: Schedule time span noted to the nearest 15 minutes. Source: Sacramento Regional Transit 2018
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Exhibit 3.10-6 displays existing bicycle facilities in the study area. The following types of bicycle facilities exist within the study area:
• Class I – A Class I facility, commonly referred to as a Bikeway or Bike Path, is a facility separated from automobile traffic for the exclusive use of bicyclists. Class I facilities can be designed to accommodate other modes of transportation, including pedestrians and equestrians, in which case they are referred to as shared use paths.
• Class II – Class II facilities, commonly referred to as Bike Lanes, are dedicated facilities for bicyclists immediately adjacent to automobile traffic. Class II facilities are identified with striping, pavement markings and signage.
Page 3.10-22 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 3.10-6 Existing Bicycle Facilities
Page 3.10-23 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Class III – Class III facilities, commonly referred to as Bike Routes, are on‐street routes where bicyclists and automobiles share the road. They are identified with pavement markings and signage and are typically assigned to low‐volume and/or low‐speed streets.
As shown, the project site is served by Class II bike lanes along 65th Street to the east, T Street to the south, parts of 59th Street to the west and Folsom Boulevard to the north, and by the Class III bike route along M Street to the northwest.
Existing pedestrian facilities are presented in Exhibit 3.10-7. As shown, sidewalks are generally present along the roadways adjacent to the project site. There are a few locations of intermittent sidewalk on the south side of Folsom Boulevard between 59th Street and 65th Street. Crosswalks are present at local signalized intersections in the study area, as well as a midblock crossing on S Street between parking and the east side of the existing Headquarters Campus.
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance/Significance Criteria
Based on the threshold identified in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, the project would result in a significant transportation/circulation impact if it would:
• cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections);
• exceed, either individually or cumulatively a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways;
• result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks;
• substantially increase hazards because of a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment);
• result in inadequate emergency access; or
• result in inadequate parking capacity; or conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks).
Additional guidelines adopted by the City in applicable general plans and previous environmental documents, including the 2035 General Plan Master EIR (City of Sacramento 2014).
Page 3.10-24 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 3.10-7 Existing Pedestrian Facilities
Page 3.10-25 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The following describes the significance criteria used to identify project-specific and cumulatively considerable impacts to the transportation and circulation system for the proposed project.
Intersections – Impacts to the roadway system would be significant if:
• traffic generated by the project degrades the overall roadway system operation to the extent that the project would not be consistent with General Plan Policy M 1.2.2 relating to the City’s allowable Level of Service; or
• traffic generated by the project substantially degrades operation of intersections and roadway segments, despite compliance with General Plan policies.
All study intersections are maintained by the City of Sacramento; the City’s General Plan Mobility Element Policy M 1.2.2 sets forth definitions for what is considered an acceptable LOS. Study intersections 1, 2, 7, 8, and 11 are specified along identified roadways or are within a ½ mile walking distance of a light rail station, as specified by Policy M 1.2.2 (C), under which LOS E is acceptable during the peak hours. Study intersections 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 are specified within the 65th North priority investment area, as specified by Policy M 1.2.2 (B), under which LOS F is acceptable during the peak hours. The City may require improvements to transportation system-wide capacity, intersections, or non-auto travel modes to maintain these LOS E or F conditions.
Table 3.10-8 displays the minimum acceptable LOS for each study intersection.
Table 3.10-8 Intersection Level of Service Standards Intersection Minimum Acceptable LOS 1. 59th Street / T Street E 2. 59th Street / S Street / US 50 Ramps E 3. Folsom Boulevard / 59th Street F 4. 65th Street / Elvas Avenue F 5. 65th Street / Folsom Boulevard F 6. 65th Street / Q Street F 7. 65th Street / S Street / US 50 WB Ramps E 8. 65th Street / US 50 EB Ramps E 9. 65th Street / 4th Avenue F 10. 65th Street / Broadway F 11. 65th Street / 8th Avenue E Sources: City of Sacramento General Plan Mobility Element (2015)
Page 3.10-26 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Vehicle Miles Traveled - Impacts related to VMT would be considered significant if the project would:
• substantially increase VMT per service population (total residents and employees) within the VMT influence area.
Transit – Impacts to the transit system would be significant if the project would:
• adversely affect public transit operations, or • fail to adequately provide access to transit.
Bicycle Facilities Impacts to bicycle facilities are considered significant if the project would:
• adversely affect existing or planned bicycle facilities, or • fail to adequately provide for access by bicycle.
Pedestrian Circulation Impacts to pedestrian circulation are considered significant if the project would:
• adversely affect existing or planned pedestrian facilities, or • fail to adequately provide for access by pedestrians.
The first significance criterion bullet listed above under “Intersections” is the City’s interpretation of how General Plan Policy M 1.2.2 should be applied on LOS E or LOS F specified roadways, or in LOS F priority investment areas. LOS E or F conditions should not be detrimental toward other General Plan circulation policies (including but not limited to policies M 1.2.1, 1.2.4, 1.3.3, and 1.3.5), which pertain to providing high-quality transit, walkable neighborhoods and business districts, continuous and connected bikeways, transportation demand management, emergency response, and other circulation considerations. So, while a single intersection operating at LOS E or F during the peak hour may be considered acceptable, an entire roadway system that experiences severe gridlock, and hampers all modes of travel is generally not considered acceptable. To this end, the evaluation of this significance criterion focuses on the totality of system operations to assess consistency with General Plan Policy M 1.2.2.
In developing Policy M 1.2.2, the City evaluated the benefits of allowing lower levels of service to promote infill development within an urbanized high density area of the city that reduces VMT and supports more transportation alternatives, including biking, walking, and transit, as compared to requiring a higher level of service that would accommodate more cars but may also require widening roads and would result in increased vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Based on this evaluation, the City determined that LOS E or F is considered acceptable during peak hours within the specified roadways, as long as the project provides acceptable improvements to other parts of the citywide transportation system, as described above.
Page 3.10-27 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The City’s LOS policy was adopted to allow decreased levels of service (i.e., LOS E and LOS F) along specific roadways that supports more transportation alternatives and places residents proximate to employment, entertainment, retail, and neighborhood centers and thus reduces overall vehicle miles traveled and results in environmental benefits (e.g., improved air quality and reduced greenhouse gas emissions).
Analysis Methodology
Project Trip Generation Trip generation rates were determined using vehicle counts collected on December 7, 2016, at the existing Headquarters Campus driveways. The counts included vehicle trips associated with the Corporation Yard, which, at the time, was the temporary workspace for Headquarters Building staff. The AM peak hour for the study area occurs from 7:30 to 8:30 a.m., and the PM peak hour occurs from 4:30 to 5:30 p.m. The AM and PM peak hour vehicle trip generation rates calculated from driveway traffic counts are presented in Table 3.10-9. Overall, the campus generates 501 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, and 515 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.
Table 3.10-9 Existing Headquarters Campus Vehicle Trip Generation Existing Vehicle Trips Headquarters Campus Driveways AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total In Out Total In Out 59th Street / Corporation Yard 112 88 24 83 9 74 Folsom Boulevard / 62nd Street 63 51 12 62 4 58 S Street / Child Care Center & Auxiliary Building 22 16 6 22 9 13 S Street / EV Charging Station 79 43 36 62 25 37 S Street / 61st Street 107 89 18 118 10 108 S Street / Customer Service Center Parking 72 61 11 66 7 59 S Street / Visitor Parking 42 30 12 82 28 54 S Street / Customer Service Center Loading 4 2 2 20 8 12 Total 501 380 121 515 100 415 Source: Modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2017
The vehicle driveway counts and current Headquarters Campus employment total were used to develop peak hour vehicle trip generation rates, as presented in Table 3.10-10. The campus generates 0.358 vehicle trips per employee during the AM peak hour, and 0.368 vehicle trips per employee during the PM peak hour. This vehicle trip generation rate is consistent with the expectation that the campus generates lower vehicle trips per employee than typical office land use because of the campus’ higher percentage of travel using carpools, vanpools, transit, and biking (discussed in the next section). Daily vehicle trip generation rates were estimated using the AM and PM peak hour rates, multiplied by a k-factor developed by comparing the peak hour to daily trip rates for
Page 3.10-28 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
General Office Building land use from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition) (ITE 2015).
Table 3.10-10 Existing Headquarters Campus Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Existing Vehicle Trip Generation Rates (Vehicle Trips / Employee) Land Use Quantity Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Rate In % Out % Rate In % Out % Existing 1,400 Employees 3.096 0.358 76 24 0.368 19 81 Campus Source: Modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2017
These vehicle trip generation rates were used to estimate the vehicle trips of the proposed SMUD HQCMP, as presented in Table 3.10-11. The HQCMP would be expected to generate 6,920 daily, 800 AM peak hour, and 822 PM peak hour vehicle trips. This would represent an increase of 2,586 daily, 299 AM peak hour, and 307 PM peak hour vehicle trips from existing conditions.
Table 3.10-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan Vehicle Trip Generation Vehicle Trip Generation Land Use Quantity Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Total Total In Out Total In Out Existing Headquarters 1,400 Employees 4,334 501 380 121 515 100 415 Campus HQCMP 2,235 Employees 6,920 800 608 192 822 156 666 Net Change +835 Employees +2,586 +299 +228 +71 +307 +56 +251 Source: Modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2017
Travel Mode Split Existing Headquarters Campus employee travel mode splits were determined using data from SMUD’s employee commute program. The following exhibit (Exhibit 3.10-8) shows the existing travel mode splits.
As shown, the majority of employees commute using automobile; however, 32 percent of employees use a mode other than driving alone (i.e. carpool, vanpool, bike, or transit). SMUD’s commuter program provides benefits to employees to encourage non- single occupancy vehicle travel. The nearby bicycle facilities, and the site’s location adjacent to the 59th Street and the University/65th Street light rail stations also account for the lower drive alone mode share compared to a typical suburban office.
Page 3.10-29 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 3.10-8 Existing Employee Commute Travel Modes
At buildout, utilizing the same mode split figures as the existing Headquarters Campus employees, the projected 2,235 employees would be expected to exhibit the following mode split for commute travel:
• 1,520 employees drive alone (net increase in 568 employees from existing) • 223 employees using transit (net increase in 83 employees from existing) • 201 employees biking (net increase in 75 employees from existing) • 112 employees vanpooling (net increase in 42 employees from existing) • 179 employees carpooling (net increase in 67 employees from existing)
Project Vehicle Trip Distribution Vehicle trip distribution was developed based on the following data sources:
• existing Headquarters Campus employee residences by ZIP code;
• review of existing travel patterns to/from the Headquarters Campus driveways;
• review of traffic counts in the study area around the Headquarters Campus;
• travel time comparison from Google Maps for parallel routes to/from the campus (e.g. Folsom Boulevard versus US 50); and
• proposed building locations as identified in the HQCMP.
Page 3.10-30 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 3.10-9 displays the locations of Headquarters Campus employee residences by ZIP code. This information was used to determine the trip distribution of the existing site and expected distribution of the HQCMP. As shown, many employees live east along the US 50 corridor (in Folsom and El Dorado Hills) and south along the Interstate 5 and State Route 99 corridors (in South Sacramento and Elk Grove).
The estimated trip distribution of the HQCMP project trips is shown in Exhibit 3.10-10 for inbound trips, and in Exhibit 3.10-11 for outbound trips.
Approximately 40 percent of project traffic would continue to travel to/from the west on US 50, 39 percent to/from the east on US 50, eight percent to/from the west on Folsom Boulevard, five percent to/from the south on 59th Street, as well as a minor percentage of trips to/from other roadways.
At the campus driveways, approximately 31 percent of project traffic would enter/exit via the Folsom Boulevard/62nd Street driveway, 26 percent via the S Street/61st Street driveway, 27 percent via the S Street/Corporate Center driveway, and a minor percentage of trips through the other driveways.
Issues or Potential Impacts Not Discussed Further
All issues applicable to transportation and circulation listed under the significance criteria above, are addressed in this chapter.
Page 3.10-31 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 3.10-9 Existing Headquarters Campus Employee Residences by ZIP Code
Page 3.10-32 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 3.10-10 Project Inbound Trip Distribution
Page 3.10-33 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 3.10-11 Project Outbound Trip Distribution
Page 3.10-34 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Impact Analysis
Impact 3.10-1: Intersection level of service impacts.
Implementation of the HQCMP would increase peak hour traffic volumes but would not cause any intersection operations to degrade to unacceptable levels. This impact would be less than significant.
Existing Plus Project traffic volumes account for the net addition of vehicle trips associated with the HQCMP from the existing Headquarters Campus in accordance with the trip distribution previously presented. Exhibit 3.10-12 displays the resulting Existing Plus Project AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes, and Exhibit 3.10-13 displays the Existing Plus Project peak hour driveway traffic volumes.
Table 3.10-12 shows the Existing Plus Project peak hour intersection operations at the study intersections. The HQCMP would generally be served by the same driveways as the existing Headquarters Campus. The increase in 299 AM peak hour and 307 PM peak hour vehicle trips would be spread among the project driveways and through the study intersections. In general, the project would result in relatively minor changes in traffic operations within the study area. All intersections would maintain the same overall LOS with the addition of the project (except the intersection of 65th and Q streets which worsens from LOS B to LOS C), and all would continue to operate at acceptable level of service. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Page 3.10-35 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 3.10-12 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Page 3.10-36 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 3.10-13 Existing Plus Project Peak Hour Driveway Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Page 3.10-37 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.10-12 Intersection Operations - Existing Plus Project Conditions Minimum Existing Existing Plus Traffic Peak Intersection Acceptable Conditions Project Control Hour LOS Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS AM 27 C 24 C 1. 59th Street / T Street Signal E PM 13 B 15 B 2. 59th Street / S Street / US 50 AM 40 D 40 D Signal E Ramps PM 34 C 37 D AM 19 B 17 B 3. Folsom Boulevard / 59th Street Signal F PM 16 B 17 B AM 20 B 18 B 4. 65th Street / Elvas Avenue Signal F PM 16 B 17 B AM 31 C 33 C 5. 65th Street / Folsom Boulevard Signal F PM 75 E 76 E AM 18 B 26 C 6. 65th Street / Q Street Signal F PM 53 D 55 D 7. 65th Street / S Street / US 50 WB AM 38 D 41 D Signal E Ramps PM 48 D 51 D AM 13 B 15 B 8. 65th Street / US 50 EB Ramps Signal E PM 10 A 9 A AM 21 C 22 C 9. 65th Street / 4th Avenue Signal F PM 22 C 21 C AM 36 D 43 D 10. 65th Street / Broadway Signal F PM 27 C 24 C AM 4 (10) A (A) 7 (9) A (A) 11. 65th Street / 8th Avenue SSSC E PM 2 (22) A (C) 2 (16) A (C) Notes: LOS = Level of Service. SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Controlled 1 For signalized intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches. For SSSC intersections, the LOS and control delay for the worst movement is shown in parentheses next to the average intersection LOS and delay. Impacts to intersections are determined based on the overall LOS and average delay. Intersection LOS and delay is calculated based on the procedures and methodology contained in the HCM 2010 (Transportation Research Board, 2010). All intersections were analyzed in SimTraffic. Source: Modeling prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017
Impact 3.10-2: Vehicle miles traveled impacts.
Implementation of the HQCMP would increase total VMT but would not increase daily VMT per service population in the project’s VMT influence area. This impact would be less than significant.
VMT is a new metric for identifying transportation impacts (as required under SB 743 and discussed previously), which seeks to balance the needs of congestion management with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Page 3.10-38 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The first assessment of VMT presents how the project changes VMT for employees of the campus. Table 3.10-13 displays the daily VMT and average daily VMT per employee for the SMUD HQCMP. The project was input into the refined SACMET base year travel demand model, the model was run, and all trips to/from the traffic analysis zones representing the project site was tracked throughout the model. The model estimated that the SMUD HQCMP would generate 52,332 daily VMT, which equates to an average of 23.41 daily VMT per employee. This would represent an increase in 20,841 daily VMT, and an increase in overall daily VMT per employee by 0.92 compared to the existing Headquarters Campus.
Table 3.10-13 SMUD HQCMP Generated VMT - Existing Plus Project Conditions Campus Generated Campus Campus Description Scenario Daily Vehicle Daily VMT Employees Daily VMT Trips per Employee Existing Headquarters Existing Conditions 1,400 4,334 31,491 22.49 Campus Existing Plus Project SMUD HQCMP 2,235 6,920 52,332 23.41 Conditions Notes: Headquarters Campus generated VMT is all VMT associated with trips having an origin or destination at the campus. Source: Modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2017
The second assessment of VMT presents how the project changes VMT for the area surrounding the campus. Table 3.10-14 presents the daily VMT and average daily VMT per service population (total residents and employees) under Existing Plus Project conditions, in the influence area of the HQCMP (i.e., the extent to where the HQCMP influences VMT on the surrounding roadway network). The refined SACMET base year travel demand model was used to determine the VMT influence area of the project, which is approximately a 7-mile buffer around the project site. The addition of the HQCMP would add 835 employees to the influence area, locating more employment in closer proximity to existing residential development surrounding the campus and slightly shortening the distance of commute trips on average for residents in the area. As such, the project would decrease the daily VMT generated by the influence area by 1,305 VMT and decrease the daily VMT per service population slightly by 0.03. The project would be served by multiple transit facilities, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities in close proximity that would contribute to the lower drive alone automobile use and reduction in daily VMT per service population in the influence area. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Page 3.10-39 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.10-14 Influence Area Generated VMT - Existing Plus Project Conditions Influence Area Influence Area Generated Daily VMT per Scenario Service Daily Vehicle Residents Employees Daily VMT Service Population Trips Population Existing 595,430 361,652 957,082 4,541,710 23,013,081 24.05 Conditions Existing Plus 595,430 362,487 957,917 4,543,517 23,011,776 24.02 Project Notes: Influence Area generated VMT is all the VMT associated with trips having an origin or destination in the VMT influence area. Source: Modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2017
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact 3.10-3: Impacts to transit facilities.
Implementation of the HQCMP would increase transit demand for 83 additional commuters seeking to use transit, which can be accommodated within the multiple transit options in the study area. Access to transit is adequately provided by sidewalks and crosswalks on 59th Street, 65th Street, and Folsom Boulevard that connect transit riders to/from the campus. This impact would be less than significant.
Implementation of the project would generate 83 additional commuters using transit. Multiple transit options exist within the study area, including the Gold Line light rail line, which serve two stations near the project site, the 59th Street and University/65th Street stations. Multiple SacRT bus lines also serve the study area (including 26, 38, 61, 65, 81, 82, and 87) with stops within a ¼ mile of the project site. The increase in demand generated by the project can be easily accommodated by existing available transit.
Access to available light rail transit at both the 59th Street and University/65th Street stations, and available bus lines with stops on Folsom Boulevard and at the University/65th Street station, is provided via the project’s internal pathways and sidewalks, as well as sidewalks and crosswalks on 59th Street, 65th Street, and Folsom Boulevard that connect transit riders to/from the campus. Therefore, adequate transit access is considered to be available in the study area to accommodate the additional demand that may be generated by the HQCMP. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Page 3.10-40 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Impact 3.10-4: Impacts to bicycle facilities.
Implementation of the HQCMP would not interfere with existing or planned bicycle facilities; however, there is a lack of adequate bicycle access to/from the campus on Folsom Boulevard and 59th Street (south of S Street) due to the lack of existing bicycle facilities. This impact would be potentially significant.
The project would not interfere with existing bicycle facilities on 59th Street (north of S Street) and 65th Street, or planned bicycle facilities on Folsom Boulevard (between 57th Street and 66th Street) and 59th Street (south of S Street).
Implementation of the project would generate 75 additional bicycle commuters. These additional bicycle commuters would be accommodated by existing bicycle facilities (i.e. along 59th Street north of S Street, and 65th Street) and proposed Class I bike paths on S Street and through the Headquarters Campus as part of the project. Access to/from the project by bicycle would be inhibited by the lack of existing bicycle facilities on 59th Street south of S Street (notably the 59th Street overcrossing of US 50) and on Folsom Boulevard between 57th Street and 66th Street. Due to the current lack of bicycle access for these key routes to/from the Headquarters Campus, implementation of the HQCMP would result in additional bicyclists on existing routes and could lead to conflicts between other cyclists, motorists, and pedestrians. Therefore, this is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.10-4: Contribute fair share fee toward planned bicycle improvements. Prior to the completion of Phase 3 of the HQCMP, SMUD shall coordinate with the City of Sacramento to ensure adequate contribution of fair share bicycle and pedestrian improvement fees at the following impacted road segments identified in the City of Sacramento Bicycle Master Plan:
• Folsom Boulevard between 57th Street and 59th Street • 59th Street (Folsom Boulevard to South of S Street)
SMUD shall coordinate with the City of Sacramento and contribute a fair share contribution toward those improvements based on the projected increase in employee bicycle trips (75) under the HQCMP at buildout. Based on information provided in FHWA’s Capacity Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and assuming a saturation flow rate of 2,000 bicycles/hour, a fair share contribution is estimated to be 3.75% of the estimated cost of the planned improvements along 59th and Folsom Boulevard near the SMUD Headquarters Campus at 20-year buildout. The fair share fee will be determined in accordance with the City of Sacramento's fee formula and at a ratio and phasing commensurate with SMUD's direct project impact on the proposed plan improvement areas.
Page 3.10-41 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of this mitigation measure would provide appropriate funding for the City to implement the planned bicycle facility improvements; therefore, providing adequate to/from the campus by bicycle and reducing this impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of this mitigation measure would not be required as part of the implementation of Phase 1 because the Phase 1 of the HQCMP is not anticipated to result in a permanent increase in on-site employment.
Impact 3.10-5: Impacts to pedestrian facilities.
Implementation of the HQCMP would not interfere with any existing or planned pedestrian facilities in the study area, and access for pedestrians is provided by sidewalks along all frontages of the campus. This impact would therefore be less than significant.
The HQCMP includes a network of reconfigured pathways and sidewalks through the Headquarters Campus but does not propose modifications to or interfere with any existing or planned pedestrian facilities along the periphery of the project site or within the study area. Access for pedestrians is provided by sidewalks that currently exist along the frontage of the Headquarters Campus along Folsom Boulevard, 59th Street, 65th Street, and S Street. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact 3.10-6: Transportation impacts during construction.
Implementation of the HQCMP would result in temporary on-site employment during construction activities. As a result, construction activities would result in temporary increases in peak hour traffic volumes but would not cause any intersection operations to degrade to unacceptable levels. This impact would be less than significant.
Project construction would generate vehicle trips from the commutes of construction workforce and the movement of construction equipment, material, and spoils to and from the project site. Each construction worker is expected to generate two trips per day: one trip arriving during the morning and one trip departing in the afternoon. Carpooling is not assumed (which results in a conservatively high estimate of traffic) and minimal mid-shift construction worker trips (such as for lunch breaks) are expected because of the presence of likely destinations (e.g., commercial food establishments) within walking distance. Mid-shift trips, if any, would be during off-peak hours and would not, therefore, affect peak roadway congestion. Further, construction under the HQCMP would not occur all at once, but because of necessary redistribution of SMUD resources within the Headquarters Campus, construction would likely occur one facility (up to approximately 50,000 sf) at a time. As a result, construction under the HQCMP would likely employ an estimated construction workforce of approximately 30, resulting in 60
Page 3.10-42 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 construction worker trips per day. Based on the analysis provided above in Impact 3.10-1, the addition of 30 trips per peak hour would not result in a substantial temporary increase in use that would result in noticeably degraded traffic conditions.
If temporary lane closures along adjacent roadways, including Folsom Boulevard, 65th, 59th, and S streets, because of frontage improvements or utility connections are necessary, such closures would be staged during non-peak hours and regulated using appropriate traffic controls (e.g., portable signal or flag persons) to minimize congestion. As a result, conflicts with applicable plans and programs related to vehicular circulation are not anticipated. Further, construction in adjacent roadways would require an encroachment permit from the City of Sacramento, which is empowered to regulate a number of construction-related aspects, including scheduling, compliance with drainage and erosion controls. safety controls, and surface restoration. As a result, potential construction-related impacts to traffic and transportation as a result of HQCMP implementation would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Page 3.10-43 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 3.10-44 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.11 Utilities and Service Systems
This chapter provides an overview of existing utilities for the project area, including water supply, solid waste management, electrical service, natural gas service, telecommunications service. Impacts are evaluated in relation to increased demand for utilities associated with the project and actions needed to provide the services that could potentially lead to physical environmental effects.
3.11.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
There are no federal regulations regarding utilities for this project.
State
2016 California Green Building Standards Code The standards included in the 2016 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code became effective on January 1, 2017. The CALGreen Code was developed to enhance the design and construction of buildings, and the use of sustainable construction practices, through planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental air quality.
Chapter 5 (Division 5.3) of the 2016 CALGreen Code describes measures to reduce indoor demand for potable water and to reduce landscape water usage. Division 5.4 requires all construction contractors to reduce construction waste and demolition debris by 65 percent. Code requirements include preparing a construction waste management plan that identifies the materials to be diverted from disposal by efficient usage, recycling, reuse on the project, or salvage for future use or sale; determining whether materials will be sorted on-site or mixed; and identifying diversion facilities where the materials collected will be taken. In addition, CALGreen Code requires that 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils resulting primarily from land clearing be reused or recycled.
California Integrated Waste Management Act The California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) of 1989 created the California Integrated Waste Management Board, now known as the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). CalRecycle is the agency designated to oversee, manage, and track California’s 92 million tons of waste generated each year. CalRecycle provides grants and loans to help cities, counties, businesses, and organizations meet the state’s waste reduction, reuse, and recycling goals. CalRecycle promotes a sustainable environment in which these resources are not wasted but can be reused or recycled. In addition to many programs and incentives,
Page 3.11-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
CalRecycle promotes the use of new technologies to divert resources away from landfills. CalRecycle is responsible for ensuring that waste management programs are carried out primarily through local enforcement agencies.
The CIWMA is the result of two pieces of legislation, Assembly Bill 939 and Senate Bill 1322. The CIWMA was intended to minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of through transformation and land disposal by requiring all cities and counties to divert 25 percent of all solid waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 1995, and 50 percent by January 1, 2000.
The 50 percent diversion requirement is measured in terms of per-capita disposal expressed as pounds per day (lbs/day) per resident and per employee. The per-capita disposal and goal measurement system uses an actual disposal measurement based on population and disposal rates reported by disposal facilities, and it evaluates program implementation efforts. According to the most recent regional diversion/disposal progress report for 2016, the target solid-waste generation rate for the City of Sacramento (City) was 6.9 lbs/day per resident and 10.8 lbs/day per employee, and the actual measured generation rate was 5.9 lbs/day per resident and 9.5 lbs/day per employee. Therefore, the City’s actual generation rate was less than the 50 percent diversion rate requirement (CalRecycle 2017a).
Local
With respect to utilities, SMUD’s Headquarters Campus connects directly to City of Sacramento infrastructure and, as such, the utility-related goals, policies, and regulations of the City of Sacramento, as they pertain to the HQCMP and Headquarters Campus, are considered applicable.
City of Sacramento General Plan The following goals and policies from the Utilities Element of the Sacramento 2035 General Plan are applicable to the proposed project:
Goal U1.1: High-Quality Infrastructure and Services. Provide and maintain efficient, high-quality public infrastructure facilities and services throughout the city.
Goal U3.1: Adequate and Reliable Sewer and Wastewater Facilities. Provide adequate and reliable sewer and wastewater facilities that collect, treat, and safely dispose of wastewater.
Goal U4.1: Adequate Stormwater Drainage. Provide adequate stormwater drainage facilities and services that are environmentally-sensitive, accommodate growth, and protect residents and property.
• Policy U4.1.1: Adequate Drainage Facilities. The City shall ensure that all new drainage facilities are adequately sized and constructed to accommodate stormwater runoff in urbanized areas.
Page 3.11-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Goal U5.1 Solid Waste Facilities. Provide adequate solid waste facilities, meet or exceed State law requirements, and utilize innovative strategies for economic and efficient collection, transfer, recycling, storage, and disposal of refuse.
• Policy U5.1.15: Recycling and Reuse of Construction Wastes. The City shall require recycling and reuse of construction wastes, including recycling materials generated by the demolition and remodeling of buildings, with the objective of diverting eighty- five percent to a certified recycling processor.
City of Sacramento Climate Action Plan To implement sustainability goals and policies in the Sacramento 2035 General Plan, the City of Sacramento adopted a climate action plan in March 3, 2015. Included in the CAP are several goals, expressed as quantified targets, related to City utilities. These include:
• Achieve 75 percent diversion of solid waste by 2020, and work towards becoming a “zero waste” community by 2040.
• Achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita water consumption by the year 2020.
Sacramento Regional Solid Waste Authority Recycling Ordinance No. 20 The Sacramento Regional Solid Waste Authority (SWA) was formed in December 1992 to assume the responsibilities for the solid waste, recycling, and disposal needs of the Sacramento area. The SWA enforces its ordinances to regulate multifamily and commercial solid waste collection, permit franchised haulers, and promote recycling programs. SWA Ordinance No. 20, Title IV, describes business and multifamily residential recycling requirements. The following requirements apply to all businesses and nonresidential properties that generate 4 cubic yards per week or more of garbage collection service per week:
• keep recyclable materials separated from garbage;
• subscribe to a recycling service that collects recyclable materials;
• enter into a written service agreement with a franchised hauler or authorized recycler, or complete and retain a self-hauling form on-site allowing for self-hauling of recyclable materials;
• place recycling containers in employee maintenance or work areas where recyclable materials may be collected and/or stored;
• prominently post signs in work areas where recyclable materials are collected and/or stored that instruct employees about what and how to recycle;
Page 3.11-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• prominently place labeled containers and posting notices near garbage bins in customer service areas to collect recyclable materials from customers;
• provide written instructions notifying employees about what and how to recycle;
• ensure that recyclable materials generated on-site will be taken to a recycling facility, and not a landfill, for proper disposal; and
• retain on-site service agreements or other recycling documents.
Sacramento City Code
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance The Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Title 15, Chapter 15.92 of the City Code) outlines requirements for water-efficient landscapes that apply to public and private projects that include landscaped areas of at least 2,500 square feet and require a building or landscape permit, plan check, or design review. The City requires project applicants to submit a landscape documentation package for review and approval by the City. The landscape documentation package must contain project information, a water-efficient-landscape worksheet, a soil management report, a landscape design plan, an irrigation design plan, and a grading design plan.
Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance The City requires all contractors to comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance (Title 8, Chapter 8.124 of the City Code) to reduce all project waste by weight from entering landfill facilities by 50 percent through recycling. The ordinance applies to all new construction valued at $250,000 or more. Covered projects must recycle five different types of debris and materials: scrap metal; inert materials (concrete, asphalt paving, bricks); corrugated cardboard; wood pallets; and clean wood waste. The City requires contractors to prepare a waste management plan before obtaining building permits. The waste management plan must identify the sources of recyclable materials, outline a recycling method (i.e., self-separation or mixed recovery), and identify a self-haul or franchise waste hauler. Contractors are required to document the quantities of building materials recycled, salvaged or reused, and/or disposed during construction on a waste management log. The waste management log must be submitted to City Solid Waste Services within 30 days of project completion.
3.11.2 Environmental Setting
Wastewater
Wastewater Collection and Conveyance Facilities The City Department of Utilities provides wastewater collection services in Sacramento. The City originally used a combined sewer system (CSS) that provided both sewage and drainage services to more than 24,000 parcels in downtown, midtown, Land Park,
Page 3.11-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
and East Sacramento. The system, established in the 1800s, collects sewage and stormwater within the same piping. The Headquarters Campus’s sewer system consists of an 8-inch dedicated sewer line with a 12-inch main along S Street at the southwest corner of the project site. The sewer system on the Headquarters Campus is a system of private lines that then connect to the City’s existing CSS lines.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Wastewater flows collected from Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San) interceptors are ultimately transported into the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWWTP). The SRWWTP is located in Elk Grove and is owned and managed by Regional San. Currently, the SRWWTP has a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for discharge of up to 181 million gallons per day (mgd) of treated effluent into the Sacramento River.
Regional San is in the process of upgrading the SRWWTP. The upgrade, known as the EchoWater Project, must be built by 2021–2023 to meet new water quality requirements that were issued by the Central Valley RWQCB as part of Regional San’s 2010 discharge permit. The requirements are designed primarily to help protect the Delta ecosystem downstream by removing most of the ammonia and nitrates and improving the removal of pathogens from wastewater discharge. The upgrade will include deployment of new treatment technologies and facilities, and will increase the quality of effluent discharged into the Sacramento River and ensure that the SRWWTP discharge constituents are below permitted discharge limits specified in the NPDES permit. Flows to the SRWWTP have decreased as a result of water conservation efforts over the last 10 years. Further, adequate capacity for wastewater are anticipated well into the future. Flows in 2014 were approximately 141 mgd, compared to the capacity of 181 mgd stated above. It is not anticipated that Regional San will need to consider further improvements to the SRWWTP until after 2050 (Regional San 2014).
Under existing conditions, wastewater generated by uses on the Headquarters Campus totals, on average, 34,620 gallons per day. Table 3.11-1 shows the breakdown of wastewater generated on campus in terms of the existing buildings and square footages.
Table 3.11-1 Current Wastewater Generated by the Project Site Average Daily Peak Sewer Existing Land Square Sewer Demand Peaking Existing Buildings Sewer Demand Demand Use Footage Rate Factor (gpd) (gpd) Central Plant Energy 17,000 0.1 ESD per 1000 680 3.75 2,550 Generation/ sf gross floor area Power Plant Field Reporting Office 50,000 0.2 ESD per 1000 4,000 3.75 15,000 Facility (FRF) sf gross floor area Auxiliary Building Office 50,000 0.2 ESD per 1000 4,000 3.75 15,000 sf gross floor area Childcare Center Childcare 5,400 1.4 per 100 560 3.75 2,100
Page 3.11-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.11-1 Current Wastewater Generated by the Project Site Average Daily Peak Sewer Existing Land Square Sewer Demand Peaking Existing Buildings Sewer Demand Demand Use Footage Rate Factor (gpd) (gpd) average daily attendance Headquarters Office 132,000 0.2 ESD per 1000 10,560 3.75 39,600 Building sf gross floor area Fitness Center Recreational 5,500 0.3 ESD per 1000 660 3.75 2,475 sf gross floor area Customer Service Office 177,000 0.2 ESD per 1000 14,160 3.75 53,100 Center sf gross floor area Totals: 436,900 34,620 129,825 0.130 mgd Note: 1 ESD=400 GPD, gpd = gallons per day, mgd = million gallons per day, sf = square feet Source: SMUD 2018
Water Supply
The City of Sacramento is the water purveyor for the Headquarters Campus. Water supplies delivered to the project site are obtained from a combination of three sources:
• Surface water from the American River, • Surface water from the Sacramento River, and • Groundwater from the North American and South American subbasins.
The American and Sacramento rivers provide approximately 84 percent of the City of Sacramento’s drinking water supply. Groundwater resources supply the remaining 16 percent of drinking water. The City operates 20 active municipal supply wells and five irrigation wells north of the American River, and operates two active municipal supply wells and nine irrigation wells south of the American River. They are also in the process of completing two new wells south of the American River. While the City pumps groundwater from both subbasins, 90 percent of the groundwater comes from the North American subbasin (City of Sacramento 2016).
As seen below in Table 3.11-2, the amount of surface water that is able to be diverted from the American and Sacramento Rivers is projected to increase from 2020 to 2040.
Page 3.11-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.11-2 Maximum Allowable Annual Surface Water Diversion (afy) for the City of Sacramento1 Water Source 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Maximum Diversion from 81,800 81,800 81,800 81,800 81,800 the Sacramento River2 Maximum Diversion from 208,500 228,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 the American River3 Total 278,000 304,000 326,800 326,800 326,800 Note: afy = acre-feet per year 1 Data obtained from Schedule A of the 1957 Water Rights Settlement Contract between USBR and the City. 2 The City may divert up to 81,800 afy from the Sacramento River as long as the total combined diversion from both the Sacramento and American Rivers does not exceed the Maximum Combined Diversion. 3 The City may divert up to the Maximum Diversion from the American River as long as the total combined diversion from both the Sacramento and American Rivers does not exceed the Maximum Combined Diversion. Source: City of Sacramento 2016:6-8
The City of Sacramento obtains water from more sources than the Sacramento and American River. The City also uses groundwater and recycled water when providing water to the City. As seen below in Table 3.11-3, the addition of groundwater and recycled water increases the water supply by roughly 20,000 acre-feet per year (afy) shown. The City has projected water supply and demand from years 2015 to 2040 in five year increments.
The surface water supply, taken from the Sacramento and American rivers, is not anticipated to increase much past 273,507 afy. The groundwater supply and recycled water supply are both expected to remain relatively constant at roughly 20,000 afy and 1,000 afy, respectively. The water demand shown in Table 3.11-3 is a combination of residential, commercial, and industrial uses and is based on the City’s General Plan. As shown in Table 3.11-3, water supplies are anticipated to exceed water demands for all years projected.
Table 3.11-3 City of Sacramento Current and Planned Water Supply and Demand Comparison1 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
(afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) (afy) Available Water Supply 274,3002 275,917 288,288 294,419 294,419 294,419 Water Demand3 84,832 123,229 139,882 149,882 149,213 162,029 Surplus (+)/Deficit (-) 189,468 152,688 157,740 154,537 145,206 132,390 Note: afy = acre-feet/year 1 Water supplies and demands expressed in this table are based on retail supply and demand projections from the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Supplies and demand remain the same during normal, single dry, and multiple dry years because the City of Sacramento has sufficient water supply entitlements. 2 Available water supply shown for 2015 reflects projections from the 2010 UWMP. 3 Includes annual recycled water demand of approximately 1,000 afy beginning in 2020. Recycled water is defined in the 2015 UWMP as municipal wastewater that has been treated and discharged from a wastewater facility for beneficial reuse. Recycled water supplies shown here represent projected supplies, but the City does not currently use recycled water. Source: City of Sacramento 2016
Page 3.11-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The City Department of Utilities operates and maintains two water treatment plants, one (Sacramento River Water Treatment Plant) that treats water diverted from the Sacramento River and one (E.A. Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant) that treats water diverted from the American River. The combined permitted capacity of the City’s water treatment plants is currently 320 mgd, although the EA Fairbairn Plant has an additional 40 mgd of design capacity. The City currently operates 27 active municipal groundwater supply wells within the city limits. Twenty-five of these wells are located north of the American River in the communities of North Sacramento, South Natomas, and Arcade- Arden. The City wells supply the City with a maximum total capacity of approximately 20.6 mgd (City of Sacramento 2016).
The City also maintains approximately 1,600 miles of transmission and distribution system mains ranging in size from 2 to 72 inches in diameter (City of Sacramento 2016), including a 24-inch water main within 59th Street that currently supplies potable water to much of the Headquarters Campus (Ewart 2017). Existing water demand for the Headquarters Campus is shown in Table 3.11-4.
Table 3.11-4 Current Water Demand at the Project Site Existing Land Square Water Demand Average Daily Water Max Daily Water Existing Buildings Use Footage Rate Demand (gpd) Demand (gpd) Central Plant Energy 17,000 0.125 ESD per 850 1,700 Generation/ 1,000 sf gross Power Plant floor area Field Reporting Office 50,000 0.25 ESD per 5,000 10,000 Facility (FRF) 1,000 sf gross floor area Auxiliary Building Office 50,000 0.25 ESD per 5,000 10,000 1,000 sf gross floor area Childcare Center Childcare 5,400 1.75 per 100 700 1,400 average daily attendance Headquarters Office 132,000 0.25 ESD per 13,200 26,400 Building 1,000 sf gross floor area Fitness Center Recreational 5,500 0.375 ESD per 825 1,650 1,000 sf gross floor area Customer Service Office 177,000 0.25 ESD per 17,700 35,400 Center 1,000 sf gross floor area Totals: 436,900 43,275 86,550 0.087 mgd Note: 1 ESD=400 gpd, gpd = gallons per day, mgd = million gallons per day, sf = square feet Source: SMUD 2018
Page 3.11-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Stormwater
The City Department of Utilities maintains the City’s storm drainage facilities. Stormwater for the project site is collected through a series of inlets in the parking lots and landscape areas and conveyed through 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch pipes. Stormwater is conveyed southerly with three points of connection to the City of Sacramento’s storm drain system in a 15-inch pipe within S Street. The stormwater then connects to a 60-inch main as part of the City’s CSS. The on-site pipe system has relatively flat slopes that limits pipe capacity (SMUD 2015). Under existing conditions and using City standards, the site has a 10-year peak discharge of 12 cubic feet per second (cfs). The capacity of the 15-inch pipe in S Street with a slope of 0.2 percent is 2.9 cfs under full-flow conditions. The on-site pipes have a very little capacity when compared to calculated peak discharge rates (SMUD 2018).
Solid Waste Disposal
Solid waste collection services in Sacramento, including residential and a portion of commercial garbage pickup, recycling, and yard waste hauling, are provided by the City’s Recycling and Solid Waste Division. The remainder of commercial and multi- family waste, including that associated with the project site, is collected by private haulers (City of Sacramento 2015a). Solid waste, including what is generated within the Headquarters Campus and collected by the private commercial haulers, is taken to either a transfer station and then transported to a landfill, or is taken directly to a landfill. Commercial wastes can be taken to a variety of landfills, as long as they are compliant with the SWA Code for commercial waste hauling (SWA 2015). A majority of the solid waste collected in the City is taken to the Sacramento Recycling and Transfer Station or the North Area Recovery Station where it is sorted for transport to disposal facilities. Construction and demolition waste is collected by either commercial franchise haulers or hauled by the contractor or permit holder. If construction and demolition debris is being hauled by anyone else, it must be source separated and sent to an authorized recycler or delivered to a certified construction and demolition debris sorting facility (City of Sacramento 2013).
On an annual basis, the residents and businesses in the City of Sacramento dispose of approximately 474,624 tons of solid waste (City of Sacramento 2015b). As noted above more than 50 percent of the waste is recycled and the remaining percent is disposed of in a landfill. Several facilities provide solid waste disposal services to the City of Sacramento. These include the following, in order by the amount of waste the facility receives from commercial haulers and the City of Sacramento Recycling and Solid Waste Division.
1. Kiefer Landfill, located in Sloughhouse, California, is operated by Sacramento County and maintains a permitted capacity of 10,815 tons per day. The landfill has nearly 113 million cubic yards of available capacity, and is estimated to have sufficient capacity to maintain operations through 2064 (CalRecycle 2017b).
Page 3.11-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
2. Forward Landfill, located southeast of Stockton, California, is operated by Allied Waste North America. The landfill has a maximum daily throughput of over 8,668 tons per day, with a remaining capacity of approximately 22 million cubic yards and is estimated to have sufficient capacity to maintain operations through 2020 (CalRecycle 2017c).
3. L and D Landfill, located off of Fruitridge Road in Sacramento, California, is operated by L and D Landfill, LP. The landfill has a maximum capacity of 2,540 tons per day, with a maximum permitted capacity of 4 million cubic yards, sufficient to provide service through 2023. A large volume transfer facility is also located on site (CalRecycle 2017d).
4. Yolo County Central Landfill, located north of Davis, California, is operated by the Yolo County Planning and Public Works Department. The facility maintains a maximum daily throughput of 1,800 tons per day, with a maximum permitted capacity of 49 million cubic yards. The facility is expected to have sufficient capacity to allow operations through 2081 (CalRecycle 2015).
5. Lockwood Landfill, located in Sparks, Nevada, is operated by Waste Management (Waste Management 2017). The landfill currently receives approximately 5,000 tons per day of waste including municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction debris. It has a total capacity of 302.5 million cubic yards, including approximately 270 million cubic yards of available capacity (State of Nevada Bureau of Waste Management 2013). Approximately 800 tons per day arrive from the City of Sacramento, but there is no maximum daily throughput established for the landfill.
3.11.3 Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Thresholds of Significance/Significance Criteria
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, an adverse effect on utilities is considered significant if implementation of the project under consideration would do any of the following:
• have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or need new or expanded entitlements;
• require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
• exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board;
Page 3.11-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
• require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;
• be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs; or
• not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Analysis Methodology
Impacts on utilities that would result from the project were identified by comparing existing service capacity against future demand associated with project implementation. When possible, a quantitative comparison was used to determine impacts of the project on future demands. Evaluations of potential utilities impacts are based on a review of documents pertaining to the project area, including the Sacramento 2035 General Plan. Additional information was obtained through consultation with appropriate agencies, a review of letters received during public scoping, and field review of the project site and surroundings.
Issues or Potential Impacts Not Discussed Further
All issues addressed in the significance criteria are evaluated below.
Impacts Analysis
Impact 3.11-1: Require construction of new wastewater/stormwater facilities.
Implementation of the HQCMP could result in incremental/periodic increases in demand for wastewater collection facilities, which, depending on available capacity, could cause the need for local infrastructure to be modified to accommodate the changes. This impact would be potentially significant.
Implementation of the HQCMP would involve a reorganization of SMUD’s resources within the Headquarters Campus and an increase in on-site square footage and employment. As noted above, all wastewater generated by the project site currently flows to the SRWWTP, which as an average dry-weather flow capacity of 181 mgd of average dry-weather flow and currently treats approximately 141 mgd. As shown in Table 3.11-5, implementation of the HQCMP would result in a net increase of up to 0.059 mgd of wastewater per day, which would also be routed to the SRWWTP for treatment in accordance with RWQCB requirements. Based on the available capacity of
Page 3.11-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 the SRWWTP, the HQCMP would not necessitate the expansion of the SRWWTP to accommodate the additional wastewater flows requiring treatment.
Table 3.11-5 Projected Sewer Demand with Implementation of the HQCMP Average Daily Max Daily Proposed Land Square Sewer Demand Peaking Proposed Buildings Sewer Demand Use Footage Rate Factor Demand (gpd) (gpd) Community Energy / Office 48,000 0.2 ESD per 1,000 3,840 3.70 14,208 Innovation Center sf gross floor area (New) Utility Building (New) Warehouse 25,000 0.1 ESD per 1,000 1,000 3.70 3,700 sf gross floor area Learning Center Warehouse 52,500 0.2 ESD per 1000 4,200 3.70 15,540 (New) (35,000 sf) and sf gross floor area office (17,500 sf) Headquarters Office 132,000 0.2 ESD per 1,000 10,560 3.70 39,072 Building sf gross floor area Fitness Center Fitness Center 5,500 0.3 ESD per 1,000 660 3.70 2,442 sf gross floor area Open Space Open Space 0 Corporate Center1 Office 197,000 0.2 ESD per 1,000 15,760 3.70 58,312 sf gross floor area Parking Parking 0 Central Plant Energy 17,000 0.1 ESD per 1,000 680 3.70 2,516 Generation / sf gross floor area Power Plant Field Reporting Office 50,000 0.2 ESD per 1000 4,000 3.75 15,000 Facility (FRF) sf gross floor area Auxiliary Building Office 50,000 0.2 ESD per 1,000 4,000 3.70 14,800 (New) sf gross floor area Office2 Office 80,000 0.2 ESD per 1,000 6,400 3.70 23,680 sf gross floor area Totals: 657,000 51,100 189,070 0.189 MGD Net New 16,480 59,245 0.059 mgd Notes: 1 ESD=400 gpd, gpd = gallons per day, mgd = million gallons per day, sf = square feet 1. Corporate Center refers to the former SMUD Customer Service Center, which would be redesignated as the SMUD Corporate Center as part of the HQCMP. 2. An additional 80,000 sf of office space is anticipated to be constructed with sewer demands likely consistent with other office buildings. Source: SMUD 2018
As noted above, the sewer pipes that provide service to the Headquarters Campus consist of an 8-inch dedicated sewer line and a 30-inch sewer line along S Street at the southwest corner of the project site. While the potential increase in flows would be limited, the capacity of the existing infrastructure to accommodate any increases in
Page 3.11-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
flows could change over time and as development occurs within the Headquarters Campus, additional capacity of sewer infrastructure may be necessary (SMUD 2018).
Because the City uses a CSS that collects both sewage and stormwater, the following discussion also considers stormwater collection infrastructure. As noted above, the project site currently has a system of 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch stormwater collection pipes. The water is conveyed southerly with three points of connection to the City’s storm drain system in a 15-inch pipe in S Street, where it connects to the City’s 60-inch CSS pipe. The on-site stormwater pipe system has relatively flat slopes that limits pipe capacity. Under existing conditions and using City standards, the site has a 10-year peak discharge of 12 cfs. The capacity of the 15-inch pipe in S Street with a slope of 0.2 percent is 2.9 cfs under full-flow conditions. On-site pipes have a very little capacity when compared to peak discharge on even a portion of the site. The reconfiguration of buildings on the site could alter the stormwater drainage pattern leading to modified volumes of stormwater flows at certain points within the campus. However, as noted in Appendix A with respect to hydrology and water quality, drainage plans would be developed for the campus as development is proposed and considered pursuant to the HQCMP. These drainage plans would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Sacramento Department of Utilities that stormwater flows would be appropriately channeled and contained, such that the capacity of the stormwater drainage system downgradient of the project site would not be exceeded or require expansion. Further, as part of the HQCMP, stormwater management would be integrated as part of the overall landscape concept, including integration of on-site bioswales.
Additionally, excavation and pile driving during construction would encounter groundwater, which would require temporary dewatering. Groundwater extracted during construction would be discharged to the CSS before discharge to the Sacramento River. During dry periods and minor storm events, these systems would have sufficient capacity to convey dewatering flows. However, in the event that construction period dewatering occurs during a major storm event, sufficient infrastructure capacity in the CSS might not be available to support dewatering discharges and existing capacity could be exceeded.
Therefore, the HQCMP could result in an exceedance of the City’s CSS infrastructure over time and during construction dewatering. This is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure 3.11-1: Wastewater management. Prior to development of any phase/component of the HQCMP that would result in a net increase in stormwater/wastewater, SMUD shall provide the City’s Department of Utilities with sanitary sewer/stormwater studies specific to a specific HQCMP-related development for the City’s review and approval. In addition, SMUD shall remit to the City any Combined Sewer Development fees mandated by City Ordinance 2005-020 prior to development. Alternatively, SMUD may conduct a single sanitary sewer study for the
Page 3.11-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 entire HQCMP, and then negotiate and pay a one-time fee to the City, based on the net increase and associated size of upgrade needed for the entire HQCMP.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 would require the payment of fees by SMUD to the City for improving the CSS to ensure adequate long-term capacity of the system. With this mitigation measure, impacts to infrastructure capacity would be reduced to less than significant. Implementation of this mitigation measure with respect to the elements of Phase 1 would be required because the elements of Phase 1 would result in a potential increase in flows to the CSS infrastructure as a result of increased square footage.
Impact 3.11-2: Impacts on water supply.
Implementation of the HQCMP would result in a net increase in water demand at the project site. However, the City of Sacramento has available water supplies to accommodate the increased demand without the need for new or expanded entitlements. Impacts would be less than significant.
As shown above in Table 3.11-3, total water demand for the City of Sacramento in 2020 is projected to be 123,229 afy while available supplies, based on water rights, are 275,917 afy. In 2040, total water demand would increase to 162,029 afy while available supplies of 294,419 afy are anticipated to be available. Under the HQCMP, on-site development may increase water demand at the site by 20,600 gpd (approximately 23 afy) on average or 41,200 gpd on peak days. As noted above and in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” this EIR assumes and evaluates the development of up to 80,000 sf of additional office space could be provided within the Flex Space, which represents approximately 8,000 gpd of the projected increase in water demand within the Headquarters Campus, as shown in Table 3.11-6. Based on the projected surplus water supplies available to the City in 2020 (approximately 152,000 afy) and 2040 (approximately 152,000 afy) shown in Table 3.11-3 above, implementation of the HQCMP would not result in a net increase in demands such that the City would not have adequate water supplies available to meet demands. Impacts would be less than significant.
Table 3.11-6 Projected Water Demand with Implementation of the HQCMP Max Daily Square Water Demand Average Daily Proposed Buildings Proposed Land Use Demand Footage Rate Demand (gpd) (gpd) Headquarters Building Office 132,000 0.25 ESD per 1,000 13,200 26,400 sf gross floor area Fitness Center Fitness Center 5,500 0.375 ESD per 825 1,650 1,000 sf gross floor area Corporate Center1 Office 197,000 0.25 ESD per 1,000 19,700 39,400 sf gross floor area
Page 3.11-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 3.11-6 Projected Water Demand with Implementation of the HQCMP Max Daily Square Water Demand Average Daily Proposed Buildings Proposed Land Use Demand Footage Rate Demand (gpd) (gpd) Parking Parking 0 -- -- Central Plant Energy Generation / 17,000 0.125 ESD per 850 1,700 Power Plant 1,000 sf gross floor area Field Reporting Facility Office 50,000 0.25 ESD per 1,000 5,000 10,000 (FRF) sf gross floor area Auxiliary Building (New) Office 50,000 0.25 ESD per 1,000 5,000 10,000 sf gross floor area Community Energy / Office 48,000 0.25 ESD per 1,000 4,800 9,600 Innovation Center sf gross floor area (New) Utility Building (New) Warehouse 25,000 0.125 ESD per 1,250 2,500 1,000 sf gross floor area Learning Center (New) Warehouse (35,000 sf) 52,500 0.25 ESD per 1,000 5,250 10,500 and office (17,500 sf) sf gross floor area Office2 Office 80,000 0.25 ESD per 1,000 8,000 16,000 sf gross floor area Totals: 657,000 63,875 127,750 Net New 20,600 41,200 Net New (afy) 23.075 -- Note: 1 ESD=400 gpd, gpd = gallons per day, sf = square feet 1. Corporate Center refers to the former SMUD Customer Service Center, which would be redesignated as the SMUD Corporate Center as part of the HQCMP. 2. Additional office space to be developed estimating at 80,000 sf. Projections of water demand could be comparable to other office buildings on site. Source: SMUD 2018
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact 3.11-3: Require construction of new/expanded water infrastructure.
Implementation of the HQCMP would increase water demands at the project site but would not require new or expanded infrastructure. This impact would be less than significant.
As stated above in Impact 3.11-2, on-site development under the HQCMP may increase water demand at the site. The majority of new connections from the project site would occur in the western portion of the project site, tying into the existing 24-inch main located within 59th Street (Ewart 2017). Based on the incremental increase in on-site water demand and per the City of Sacramento, it is not anticipated to substantially
Page 3.11-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
increase the localized demand for water near the project site, and modification/upsizing of the existing 24-inch main is not anticipated to be necessary (Ewart 2017). As a result, new and/or expanded water infrastructure would not be required as a result of HQCMP implementation. Further, it is reasonable to assume that the structures that may be developed on the project site would be more water efficient than existing development at the project site. As a result, the impact is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact 3.11-4: Impacts to solid waste facilities.
Construction and operation activities under the HQCMP would increase solid waste generation within the project site. However, adequate landfill capacity is available at local and regional landfills to accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the project. Impacts would be less than significant.
Due to the increase in square footage and employees as a result of HQCMP implementation, the amount of solid waste generated at the project site is anticipated to increase. To determine solid waste generation from the anticipated non-residential land uses associated with the HQCMP, a rate of 5.47 lbs/day was used, consistent with guidance provided by CalRecycle for large office uses (CalRecycle 2017e). Using this generation rate, implementation of the HQCMP would increase solid waste generation at the site by 0.60 tons per day (1,200 lbs/day). As noted above, the private haulers, who would collect solid waste generated at the project site, could transport solid waste for disposal to any one of the landfills identified above, including SRTS, the Sacramento County Kiefer Landfill, the Yolo County Landfill, L and D Landfill, Florin Perkins Landfill, Elder Creek Transfer Station, and the Lockwood Landfill. Based on the total available capacity of these landfills, the incremental increase in solid waste generated as a result of HQCMP implementation, and the available capacity at these landfills, the HQCMP would not substantially affect landfill capacity such that additional waste disposal facilities would be required.
In addition, the project would be required to comply with applicable state and local requirements including those pertaining to solid waste, construction waste diversion, and recycling. Specifically, compliance with the City Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance would reduce the degree to which construction waste and demolition debris would be disposed of at local/regional landfills. Additionally, contractor compliance with goals in the Sacramento 2035 General Plan Update would also lead to a reduction in solid waste generation and increased recycling. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Page 3.11-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
4 Cumulative Impacts 4.1 CEQA Requirements
Section 15130(a) of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a)(3), means that the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines a cumulative impact as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
4.2 Cumulative Impact Approach
CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 identifies two basic methods for establishing the cumulative environment in which a project is considered: the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects or the use of adopted projections from a general plan, other regional planning document, or a certified environmental impact report (EIR) for such a planning document. This cumulative analysis uses a combination of the “list” approach and the “projections” approach to identify the cumulative setting. The effects of past and present projects on the environment are reflected by the existing conditions in the project area.
A list of probable future projects is provided below. Probable future projects are those in the project vicinity that have the possibility of interacting with the project to generate a cumulative impact and either:
1. are partially occupied or under construction,
2. have received final discretionary approvals,
3. have applications accepted as complete by local agencies and are currently undergoing environmental review, or
4. have been discussed publicly by an applicant or otherwise have become known to the lead agency, provided sufficient information is available about the project to allow at least a general analysis of environmental impacts and an evaluation of the likelihood of implementation.
The analysis also considers planning efforts that address regional environmental issues, such as water quality improvement programs, and potential effects associated with
Page 4-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 climate change. These plans, programs, and effects are discussed in relevant resource discussions below.
4.3 Scope of the Cumulative Analysis
The geographic area that could be affected by development of the project varies depending on the type of environmental resource being considered. The general geographic area associated with various environmental effects of project construction and operation defines the boundaries of the area used for compiling the list of projects considered in the cumulative impact analysis. Table 4-1 presents the general geographic areas associated with the different resources addressed in this Draft EIR and evaluated in those sections of this cumulative analysis.
Table 4-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impacts Resource Issue Geographic Area Aesthetics and Visual Resources Local (project site and surrounding public viewpoints) Air Quality Regional (Sacramento Air Quality Management District— pollutant emissions that have regional effects) Local (immediate project vicinity—pollutant emissions that are highly localized) Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Local Cultural Resources Biological Resources Regional Geology and Soils Local (immediate project vicinity) Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Global Change, and Energy Hazards and Hazardous Materials Local (immediate project vicinity) Hydrology and Water Quality Local (immediate project vicinity) Noise and Vibration Local (immediate project vicinity where effects are localized) Transportation and Circulation Regional and local Utilities Local service areas
As noted in Table 4-1, the potential geographic scope of some cumulative effects is more localized than others. To account for both regional and localized cumulative impacts, this EIR uses regional growth projections to assess regionally cumulative impacts and the list method to assess more localized cumulative impacts. Table 4-2 (correlated with their locations in Exhibit 4-1) lists present and future development projects within approximately 2 miles of the project site. This list is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of projects in the region, but rather an identification of projects constructed, approved, or under review in the vicinity of the project site (approximately two miles) that have some relation to the environmental impacts of construction and operation of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Headquarters Campus Master Plan (HQCMP).
Page 4-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 4-2 Cumulative Projects List Developed or Map Size Proposed/ Project Name Proposed Key (Acreage and/or Dwelling Units) In Progress Land Use 1 3701 Martin Luther King Commercial 3,200 sf commercial building on a 0.24-acre Proposed Boulevard - Commercial vacant parcel. Building 2 3341 Stockton Boulevard - Retail Demolish existing commercial and construct Proposed New Retail Building approx. 3,500 square feet retail on 0.23 acres. 3 3400 Broadway – Triangle Mixed Use Three-story commercial mixed-use building on a Proposed Workspace vacant lot. 4 3703 S Street - Townhomes Residential Subdivision of 2.23 acres into 43 parcels for Proposed construction of 41 townhomes. 5 5300 Folsom Boulevard – Commercial Remodel of an existing 2,750 sf commercial In Progress Starbucks Remodel space to a 2,633-sf commercial building with a modified drive-thru. 6 8354 Folsom Boulevard - Commercial Construction of 5,137 sf commercial space and a Proposed Bicentennial Commercial drive-thru. 7 8240 Folsom Boulevard - General Commercial Construction of 68,000 sf self-storage facility on a In Progress New Crescendo Self Storage 4.66-acre lot. 8 811 Alpine Avenue – Commercial Conditional Use Permit for dispensary of medical Proposed Dispensary and adult-use cannabis. 9 8130 Alpine Avenue - Industrial and Conditional Use Permit for marijuana cultivation. In Progress Cultivation Manufacturing 10 3709 Marjorie Way Tentative Residential Subdivision of 3 parcels, totaling 1.88 net acres In Progress Subdivision Map Development into 11 parcels for the construction of 9 single- family dwelling units and 2 duplex dwellings. 11 2200 Stockton Boulevard - Office and Commercial Office and commercial center on an Proposed Coca Cola Building Project Center approximately 1.54-acre parcel. 12 Accelerated Water Meter Utility Installation of approximately 25,700 water meters In Progress Project throughout the City of Sacramento, and as related to the project, is bounded by 65th Street, 46th Street, Folsom Boulevard, and US 50. 13 65th Street Station Area Plan Transit Two transportation network options that include In Progress (65th Street/University Light vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit Rail station) components. 14 59th Street Crossing (West Mixed-use Single-family, multi-family, commercial, and Proposed of SMUD Campus) community space with transit and alternative transportation network connections. 15 Sutter Park Neighborhood Mixed-use Redevelopment of former Sutter Memorial In Progress Project Hospital with 125 residential units and 5,000 square feet of commercial retail. Notes: sf = square feet Source: Data compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2017 based on data obtained from the City of Sacramento Community Development Tracker (City of Sacramento 2017).
Page 4-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Exhibit 4-1 SMUD HQCMP Cumulative Projects Map
Page 4-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
4.4 Cumulative Impact Analysis
For purposes of this EIR, the proposed HQCMP would result in a significant cumulative effect if:
• the cumulative effects of related projects (past, current, and probable future projects) are not significant, and the incremental impact of implementing the HQCMP is substantial enough, when added to the cumulative effects of related projects, to result in a new cumulatively significant impact; or
• the cumulative effects of related projects (past, current, and probable future projects) are already significant, and implementation of the HQCMP makes a considerable contribution to the effect. The standards used herein to determine a considerable contribution are that either the impact must be substantial or must exceed an established threshold of significance.
Significance criteria, unless otherwise specified, are the same for cumulative impacts and project impacts for each environmental topic area. This cumulative analysis assumes that all mitigation measures identified in Sections 3.1 through 3.11 to mitigate project impacts are adopted. The analysis herein analyzes whether, after adoption of project-specific mitigation, the residual impacts of the project would cause a cumulatively significant impact or would contribute considerably to existing/anticipated (without the project) cumulatively significant effects.
4.4.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
The cumulative context for the assessment of impacts to aesthetics and visual resources is limited to public viewpoints in and around the project site. The most prominent public view of the project site is from U.S. Highway (US) 50, which passes next to the site on its southerly boundary with over 100,000 vehicles per day and is typical of an urban environment. This viewshed is shared with Sacramento State University, Caltrans, commercial development, and residential units near the site. The project is intended to compliment, rather than detract from, the cumulative viewshed experience. Project- related structures are intended to contribute to the urban form currently existing in the area, with low- to mid-level office developments and quality architecture. New development would be visually compatible with surrounding existing and new development. Therefore, cumulative viewshed impacts would be less than significant.
The potential cumulative effects of lighting are visible over a wide area, because of the potential for lighting from a number of projects to create skyglow. However, under existing conditions, the project site and surrounding environment, consistent with an urban setting, are lit during nighttime hours. Further, the current dominant source of nightlighting in the area is the Sacramento State Football Stadium, which uses high- intensity field lighting during sporting and other special events. Redevelopment of the site would result in lighting consistent within an urban condition and not dissimilar to existing conditions at the site. As described in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics and Visual
Page 4-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Resources,” new lighting fixtures would be angled down and away from the property boundary and would not create an adverse skyglow condition. Therefore, the project would not have a considerable contribution to skyglow such that a new significant skyglow impact would occur. This would be a less-than-significant cumulative impact.
Development of the SMUD HQCMP in combination with cumulative development would not result in substantial changes to the local viewshed because it would be compatible with the surrounding visual environment. New lighting sources associated with the SMUD HQCMP and cumulative development would not contribute considerably to the overall skyglow. Therefore, the project would result in a less-than-significant cumulative visual impact.
4.4.2 Air Quality
The cumulative context for air quality is both regional (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District [SMAQMD] jurisdiction) for criteria pollutants and local for toxic air contaminants and odors. As stated in Section 3.2, “Air Quality,” the project would result in a less-than-significant air quality impact from temporary, project-specific construction activities. According to cumulative air quality significance criteria established by SMAQMD, because project-specific construction emissions are less than significant, any emissions associated with construction of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, any cumulative construction-related air quality impacts would be less than significant.
With respect to operational emissions, implementation of the HQCMP would result in a less-than-significant air quality impact from long-term, project-operations because emissions would be below SMAQMD significance thresholds. According to cumulative air quality significance criteria established by SMAQMD, because project-specific operational emissions are less than significant, any emissions associated with operations of the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
4.4.3 Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources
The cumulative context for historical resources is the city of Sacramento, where similar patterns of development have occurred for almost two centuries. The project, in combination with other development in the region, could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Because all historical resources are unique and nonrenewable members of finite classes, all adverse effects or negative impacts erode a dwindling resource base. Current federal, State, and local laws protect historical resources in most instances. Even so, many historic resources were removed or significantly altered before these protection laws were put in place. Even without active removal or alteration, historic resources may degrade and become damaged or disappear over time because of weather and other factors. In addition, even with current protection laws in place, it is not always feasible to protect historical resources, particularly when preservation in place would make implementation of projects infeasible.
Page 4-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
The proposed project results in a less-than-significant impact related to the historic Headquarters Building, but a potentially significant impact related to the historic Headquarters Landscape. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.3-2 would ensure that the project’s contribution would not be cumulatively considerable by requiring preparation of a landscape rehabilitation plan which would comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Cumulative development could result in potentially significant historic resource impacts. However, with implementation of the mitigation measures proposed, the project’s contribution to these impacts would be offset. Further, cumulative development would be required to implement similar mitigation to avoid/reduce impacts to historical resources. Therefore, the project would not have a considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impact related to historical resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.4.4 Biological Resources
Sensitive habitats for biological resources in the vicinity of the project site and in the region have been modified over time, as land has been developed and converted to urban uses. Future projects in the region could continue to result in losses of sensitive habitats and sensitive species; however, the HQCMP and other projects listed in Table 4-2 consist of infill development within an urbanized area. Although individual projects would be required to mitigate for significant impacts on a project-by-project basis, they may result in residual impacts that combine with the existing adverse condition to create a significant cumulative condition related to special-status species and sensitive habitats.
The project site and vicinity are located in a highly-urbanized area of the City of Sacramento. As discussed in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources,” the project site neither connects nor separates any significant wildlife habitat areas, and implementation of the project would not disrupt wildlife movement or use of migratory corridors. No special-status plants occur on the project site. In addition, all of the special-status wildlife species identified in the CNDDB search either do not occur on the project site or have a low potential for occurrence. Nonetheless, due to the potential for disturbance of nesting raptors and other birds, impacts would be potentially significant, but through implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1, project-specific impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. Implementation of the HQCMP would result in a potentially significant impact related to removal/disturbance of protected “City street trees.” This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.4-2 identified in Section 3.4, “Biological Resources.” Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with nesting raptors and protected trees would not be significant, and the HQCMP would not have a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.4.5 Geology and Soils
The Headquarters Campus is not located on any known faults or traces of active faults. Construction under the HQCMP would comply with applicable requirements pertaining to on-site stormwater and erosion control through implementation of Mitigation Measure
Page 4-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
3.5-1 and a site-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), thereby reducing potentially impacts to less than significant. Additionally, construction under the HQCMP would conform to the current California Building Code (CBC), which contains specifications to minimize adverse effects associated with potentially soil conditions. Through conformance with the CBC and implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.5-2, which requires preparation of a site-specific geotechnical report and implementation of design/construction measures recommended therein, development under the HQCMP would not result in significant impacts related to soil conditions.
Implementation of the various related projects and other projects in the region could result in similar geologic impacts. Geotechnical impacts are site-specific rather than regional in nature and any development occurring within the area would be subject to, at minimum, uniform site development and construction standards relative to seismic and other geologic conditions that are prevalent within the region, such as the CBC standards. Therefore, impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant.
4.4.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy
Climate change is an inherently cumulative and global issue. The quantity of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions required to induce climate change is not precisely known; however, it is clear that the quantity is enormous, and no single project alone would measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature, or to global, local, or micro climate. The analysis of GHG emissions and climate change that is provided in Section 3.6, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy” of this EIR, is considered to address both project-specific and cumulative impacts.
4.4.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The cumulative context for hazards and hazardous materials is considered local, limited to within 1,000 feet of the project site. Though some hazardous materials releases can cover a large area and interact with other releases (e.g., atmospheric contamination, contamination of groundwater aquifers), incidents of hazardous materials contamination are typically isolated to a small area, such as leaking underground storage tank sites or release at individual businesses. Because of this, isolated areas of contamination typically do not interact in a cumulative manner with other sites of hazardous materials contamination. However, if the project would create a new site of contamination or contribute substantially to a hazardous condition in the general project area, it could be considered to contribute to a cumulative impact. Impacts related to emergency vehicle access and response are considered site specific and not cumulatively considerable.
While there has been evidence of contamination documented within the project site under existing conditions and implementation of the HQCMP could result in the disturbance of contamination, implementation of the recommended mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 3.7-1) would require appropriate treatment of any contamination
Page 4-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
prior to development, thereby reducing the HQCMP’s contribution to a potential cumulative impact to less than cumulatively considerable. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Future projects within the area could add uses that may use, store, and/or generate hazardous materials. However, these projects would be subject to the same hazardous regulations as the SMUD Campus Headquarters and be required to implement project- specific mitigation consistent with applicable laws and regulations to reduce any significant hazards and hazardous materials impacts. Further, based on the projected use types, none of the projects listed above in Table 4-2 are considered to require the use of unusual or acutely hazardous materials and would likely use typical household- type cleaning products and maintenance products. Any hazardous materials stored on- site (at the project site and related sites) would be used/stored in compliance with applicable federal and state laws related to the storage of hazardous materials, thereby limiting their potential contribution to less than cumulatively considerable, similar to the proposed HQCMP. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Development under the HQCMP in combination with development of related projects would result in the addition/reconstruction of impervious surfaces, which could increase stormwater runoff. However, in accordance with federal and state stormwater regulations, new construction projects must maintain pre-project hydrology and incorporate proper pollutant source controls, minimize pollutant exposure outdoors, and treat stormwater runoff through proper post-construction BMPs when source control or exposure protection are insufficient for reducing pollutant loads. Further, similar to the HQCMP through implementation of Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 and 3.8-2, the cumulative projects listed in Table 4-2 would be required to implement a SWPPP (if they would disturb more than 1 acre of land) and associated BMPs to minimize potential for release of pollutants and sediment into surface water. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with water quality degradation would not be significant, and the HQCMP would not have a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact related to water quality. Impacts would be less than significant.
4.4.9 Noise and Vibration
The cumulative context for noise and vibration impacts is limited to the localized area in which project-related increases in noise or vibration levels could be perceived. Cumulative impacts from construction-generated noise could result if other future planned construction activities were to take place in close proximity to the project and cumulatively combine with construction noise from the project. Several projects are planned or underway under the purview of the City of Sacramento, the closest of which is the 65th Street Station Area Plan project which borders the project site to the east. In addition, the 59th Street Crossing project would involve redevelopment of former SMUD property with a mixed-use community. There are no sensitive receptors located
Page 4-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 between or immediately adjacent to both the project site and either of the two potentially cumulative projects identified above.
Construction activities associated with the project would be short-term in nature and would be minor. In additional, construction activities would be limited to one area of the project site at a time and would be at least 50 or more feet from the nearest sensitive receptor. As discussed under Impact 3.9-1 in Section 3.9, “Noise and Vibration,” construction-generated noise levels associated with the project would not result in significant, short-term, construction noise impacts through compliance with Section 8.68.080, “Exemptions,” of the City of Sacramento Municipal Code, which exempts construction noise from the City’s Noise Control Ordinance. As the project would abide by the limited hours as directed by the Sacramento Municipal Code (i.e., 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Sunday), construction- related noise impacts were found to be less than significant. Further, as discussed under Impact 3.9-2 in Section 3.9, “Noise and Vibration,” construction-generated groundborne vibration would not exceed the applicable California Department of Transportation or Federal Transit Administration’s recommended thresholds. As a result, the project would not be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant.
With respect to potential long-term noise levels, operational noise associated with implementation of the project would not be substantial such that a perceivable increase in ambient noise levels (i.e., significant impact) would occur. Stationary contributions to ambient noise levels would be reduced and would not be cumulatively considerable because the project would be required to comply with the exterior noise standards set forth in the City’s Noise Control Ordinance, which limits allowable noise from a given source such that it does not result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels.
Future traffic noise levels were modeled using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Prediction Model and are presented in Section 3.9, “Noise and Vibration.” Substantial permanent increases (i.e., greater than 3 A-weighted decibels) in roadway noise levels would not occur at any of the study roadway segments, and no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. Further, the anticipated increase that would occur would largely result from increased traffic generated by other local development. Therefore, the project would not result in a considerable contribution such that a new significant cumulative noise impact would occur. Cumulative operational noise impacts would continue to be less than significant.
4.4.10 Transportation and Circulation
The cumulative context for transportation and circulation impacts is local with respect to physical facilities (roads, bikelanes, sidewalks, etc.) and regional with respect to vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The analysis of cumulative transportation and circulation impacts does not rely on the list of specific pending, reasonably foreseeable development proposals in the vicinity of the project shown in Table 4-2; rather, it relies on existing and future development accommodated under the City’s General Plan, which is included in regional travel demand modeling.
Page 4-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Traffic Forecasts
The most recent version of the SACMET regional travel demand model developed and maintained by SACOG was used to forecast cumulative (year 2036) traffic volumes within the study area. The cumulative version of this model accounts for planned land use growth within the City of Sacramento according to the City’s 2035 General Plan, as well as within the surrounding region. The SACMET model also accounts for planned improvements to the surrounding transportation system, and incorporates the current Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (MTP/SCS) for the Sacramento region. The version of the model used to develop the forecasts was modified to include the most recent planned land uses and transportation projects within the City of Sacramento. Modifications to the model included additional transportation network and land use detail within the study area to improve accuracy.
Notable cumulative transportation projects in the study area include:
• complete streets rehabilitation of Folsom Boulevard between 65th Street and 350 feet east of the Union Pacific Railroad underpass to include bicycle lanes and sidewalks,
• construction of HOV lanes on US 50 between State Route 99 and Watt Avenue, and
• extension of Ramona Avenue from Brighton Avenue to Folsom Boulevard.
Notable cumulative land use projects in the study area include:
• 59th Street Reuse Project – mixed residential and commercial land use project at the SMUD corporation yard site.
A forecasting procedure known as the “difference method” was used to develop the Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project forecasts. This method accounts for potential differences between the base year model and existing traffic counts that could otherwise transfer to the future year model and traffic forecast.
This forecasting procedure is calculated as follows:
Cumulative Traffic Forecast = Existing Count Volume + (Cumulative Model Forecast – Base Year Model Forecast)
Intersection Operations
Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project intersection traffic volumes were determined following the forecasting methodology previously presented. Exhibit 4-2 displays the AM and PM peak hour intersection traffic volumes under Cumulative No Project conditions, and Exhibit 4-3 displays the peak hour intersection traffic volumes under Cumulative Plus Project conditions.
Page 4-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 4-2 Cumulative No Project Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Page 4-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Source: Exhibit prepared by Fehr & Peers in 2017 Exhibit 4-3 Cumulative Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Traffic Volumes and Lane Configurations
Page 4-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Table 4-3 shows the peak hour intersection operations at the study intersections under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions.
Table 4-3 Intersection Operations - Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Cumulative No Cumulative Plus Traffic Intersection Peak Hour Project Project Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS AM 68 E 78 E 1. 59th Street / T Street Signal PM 20 C 17 B 2. 59th Street / S Street / US 50 AM 68 E 70 E Signal Ramps PM 66 E 61 E AM 24 C 26 C 3. Folsom Boulevard / 59th Street Signal PM 21 C 29 C AM 32 C 49 D 4. 65th Street / Elvas Avenue Signal PM 17 B 18 B AM 57 E 65 E 5. 65th Street / Folsom Boulevard Signal PM 125 F 104 F AM 40 D 42 D 6. 65th Street / Q Street Signal PM 52 D 33 C 7. 65th Street / S Street / US 50 WB AM 52 D 67 E Signal Ramps PM 50 D 58 E AM 15 B 17 B 8. 65th Street / US 50 EB Ramps Signal PM 31 C 39 D AM 25 C 26 C 9. 65th Street / 4th Avenue Signal PM 34 C 36 D AM 82 F 83 F 10. 65th Street / Broadway Signal PM 111 F 109 F AM 131 (17) F (C) 141 (15) F (B) 11. 65th Street / 8th Avenue SSSC PM 82 (32) F (D) 82 (53) F (F) Notes: LOS = Level of Service. SSSC = Side-Street Stop-Controlled. Significant impacts are noted in bold. 1 For signalized intersections, average intersection delay is reported in seconds per vehicle for all approaches. For SSSC intersections, the LOS and control delay for the worst movement is shown in parentheses next to the average intersection LOS and delay. Impacts to intersections are determined based on the overall LOS and average delay. Intersection LOS and delay is calculated based on the procedures and methodology contained in the HCM 2010 (Transportation Research Board, 2010). All intersections were analyzed in SimTraffic. Source: Modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2017
Under Cumulative No Project conditions, motorists are expected to experience increased delays within the study area relative to Existing conditions. During the AM peak hour, the intersection of 59th Street and T Street operates at LOS E because of the queue spillback from the northbound left turn at 59th Street / S Street / US 50 Ramps. During both the AM and PM peak hours, the intersection 59th Street and S Street / US 50 Ramps operate at LOS E because of the on and off-ramp traffic, split phasing, and close proximity to adjacent intersections and the light rail crossing. The intersection of 65th Street and Folsom Boulevard operates at LOS E notably because of the increase in traffic southbound through the intersection, high volume of conflicting traffic, and close proximity to adjacent congested intersections on 65th Street and the light rail crossing. The
Page 4-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
intersection of 65th Street at S Street / US 50 Westbound Ramps operates at LOS E because of the high volume of off-ramp traffic conflicting with northbound and southbound traffic, as well as the close proximity to the light rail crossing. The intersections of 65th Street at Broadway and 65th Street at 8th Avenue operate at LOS F because of the increase in northbound traffic downstream turning right onto the US 50 eastbound on- ramp; with motorists queuing in the right-most through lane which extends back past 65th / Broadway and 65th / 8th Avenue.
In general, the project’s contribution under cumulative conditions would result in relatively minor worsening of congested intersection operations within the study area. Most intersections would continue to operate at acceptable level of service under Cumulative No Project and Plus Project conditions, except for the intersection of 65th Street and Broadway, which worsens unacceptable LOS F conditions in the AM peak hour, and the intersection of 65th Street and 8th Avenue, which worsens unacceptable LOS F in the PM peak hour. Both of these intersections operate poorly because of the northbound bottleneck at the intersection of 65th Street and US 50 Eastbound Ramps. The project would worsen LOS F conditions at intersection 11 by adding 10 seconds of delay. This would be considered cumulatively considerable and would result in a potentially significant cumulative impact.
Mitigation Measure 4-1: Fair share contribution towards improvement of intersection of 65th Street and US 50 Eastbound Ramp. Prior to construction of facilities that would increase on-site employment, SMUD shall provide a fair share contribution (based on SMUD’s contribution to total cumulative peak hour traffic) to the City of Sacramento for the provision of a northbound right turn pocket at the intersection of 65th Street and US 50 Eastbound Ramps.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of this mitigation measure would allow for additional capacity and throughput of this high-traffic-demand movement, thereby reducing queuing upstream at the intersections of 65th Street at Broadway and 65th Street at 8th Avenue. As a result, the HQCMP’s contribution to cumulative LOS impacts in the study area would be reduced to less than cumulatively considerable. With respect to this intersection, the MTP/SCS includes, as a planned project, the improvement (widening) of 65th Street from US 50 to Broadway. Such an improvement would provide the capacity that would otherwise be provided by Mitigation Measure 4-1 and further physical improvements along 65th Street (through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-1) would not be necessary to reduce the HQCMP’s contribution to less than cumulatively considerable. Should the widening of 65th Street occur prior to implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-1, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-1 would not be necessary. However, since completion of the MTP/SCS improvement cannot be assured and until such time as funding of the improvement is secured, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-1 is considered necessary and would reduce the HQCMP’s contribution to cumulative impacts along 65th Street, with or without the widening of 65th Street under the MTP/SCS, to less than cumulatively considerable.
Page 4-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Table 4-4 displays the daily VMT and average daily VMT per employee for the existing Headquarters Campus and SMUD HQCMP under cumulative conditions. The campus was input into the refined SACMET cumulative year (2036) travel demand model, the model was run, and all trips to/from the traffic analysis zones representing the project site was tracked throughout the model. The model estimated that the SMUD HQCMP would generate 50,312 daily VMT, which equates to an average of 22.51 daily VMT per employee. This would represent an increase in 20,010 VMT compared to the existing Headquarters Campus under cumulative conditions (i.e. Cumulative No Project conditions), and an increase in daily VMT per employee by 0.87.
Table 4-4 SMUD HQCMP Generated VMT - Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Campus Generated Campus Campus Description Scenario Daily Vehicle Daily VMT Employees Daily VMT Trips per Employee Existing Headquarters Cumulative No Project 1,400 4,334 30,302 21.64 Campus Conditions Cumulative Plus SMUD HQCMP 2,235 6,920 50,312 22.51 Project Conditions Notes: Headquarters Campus generated VMT is all VMT associated with trips having an origin or destination at the campus. Source: Modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2017
Table 4-5 presents the daily VMT and average daily VMT per service population (total residents and employees) in the campus VMT influence area under Cumulative No Project and Cumulative Plus Project conditions. The addition of the HQCMP would add 835 employees to the VMT influence area, which corresponds to roughly a 7-mile buffer around the project site. Within the influence area, the HQCMP would increase daily VMT by 26,761. The daily VMT per service population in the influence area would remain unchanged with or without the project under cumulative conditions. The project is served by multiple transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in close proximity that would contribute to the daily VMT per service population in the influence area remaining consistent with the project under cumulative conditions. Therefore, the project would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.
Table 4-5 Influence Area Generated VMT - Cumulative Plus Project Conditions Influence Area Influence Area Generated Daily VMT per Scenario Service Daily Vehicle Residents Employees Daily VMT Service Population Trips Population Cumulative No 830,343 510,945 1,341,288 6,030,589 30,027,429 22.39 Project Conditions Cumulative Plus 830,343 511,780 1,342,123 6,032,336 30,054,190 22.39 Project Conditions Notes: Influence Area generated VMT is all the VMT associated with trips having an origin or destination in the VMT influence area (a 7-mile buffer around the campus). Source: Modeling conducted by Fehr & Peers in 2017
Page 4-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Transit Facilities Implementation of the HQCMP would increase demand for additional transit riders which can be accommodated by the multiple transit options in the study area, notably Gold line light rail line, which serve two stations near the project site, the 59th Street and University/65th Street stations. Access to available transit is provided by the project’s internal pathways and sidewalks, and the sidewalks and crosswalks connecting to the light rail stations along 59th Street and 65th Street. As the project would not reduce access to transit, implementation of the HQCMP would not be considered cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.
Bicycle Facilities Implementation of the HQCMP would not alter existing or planned bicycle facilities in the study area. The project includes Class I bike paths on S Street and though the Headquarters Campus. Access to/from the project by bicycle would be provided via existing bicycle facilities and planned facilities on Folsom Boulevard (between 57th Street and 66th Street) and 59th Street (south of S Street). Therefore, the project would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.
Pedestrian Facilities The project would not alter existing or planning pedestrian facilities in the study area. The project would be accommodated by existing and planned pedestrian facilities adjacent to the Headquarters Campus and along all frontages to the campus Sidewalks currently exist along the frontage of the Headquarters Campus along Folsom Boulevard, 59th Street, 65th Street, and S Street. Therefore, the project would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative pedestrian impacts would be less than significant.
4.4.11 Utilities and Service Systems
The cumulative context for utilities-related impacts is the service area for each utility (stormwater, wastewater, water, solid waste). Typically, cumulative impacts to stormwater and wastewater are addressed separately. However, because of the City’s combined sewer system (CSS), the two are considered together. Given the past, present, and future projects in the surrounding area and the location of the 24-inch main on 59th Street, it is considered unlikely that the proposed HQCMP would represent a substantial contribution to the demand for collection and treatment facilities. However, SMUD, as part of the HQCMP, would implement Mitigation Measure 3.11-1 to ensure that off-site wastewater flows do not exceed the capacity of available infrastructure, thereby reducing the HQCMP’s contribution to wastewater flows to less than cumulatively considerable. The fees that the applicant would pay would go towards the cost of replacing or repairing parts of the CSS to improve the system. Further, stormwater runoff generated at the site would be required, through adherence to applicable federal and state regulations, to restrict the rate of runoff such that existing flow rates are maintained. As a result, the capacity of existing stormwater facilities would not be affected. Further, as noted in Section 3.11, “Utilities and Service Systems,” the regional wastewater treatment plant is anticipated to have adequate capacity over the long term, including projected demands associated with
Page 4-17 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
regional development past 2050. As a result, the HQCMP would not be considered cumulatively considerable with respect to stormwater and wastewater flows. As a result, the combined cumulative impact to the CSS (stormwater and wastewater) infrastructure would be less than significant.
As discussed in Section 3.11, “Utilities and Service Systems,” water would be supplied to the project site by the City of Sacramento. As stated in that section, the long-term water supplies available to the City and its customers, including the Headquarters Campus, are in excess of the anticipated demand, including a projection of future demands (i.e. potential cumulative demand) until 2040. As a result, the HQCMP is not considered cumulatively considerable with respect to water supply impacts, and impacts would be less than significant.
The water supply infrastructure is capable of handling an increase in demand given the City’s ability to provide water to the campus. The 24-inch main located off 59th Street provides the ability for any new connections or replacements to occur. The impact to the water supply infrastructure would be less than significant.
Solid waste will be taken care of by multiple landfills. The landfills that receive waste generated at the project site by new/expanded uses under the HQCMP are projected to have adequate capacity for the next several years (refer to page 3.11-9 of this Draft EIR). Given the number of landfills in the region with available capacity to serve the project site and development in the area over the long term, the project is not considered cumulatively considerable and impacts would be less than significant.
Page 4-18 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
5 Other CEQA Sections
Section 15126 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that all aspects of a project be considered when evaluating its impact on the environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. As part of this analysis, the environmental impact report (EIR) must also identify the following: (1) significant environmental impacts of the project, (2) significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented, (3) significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the project, and (4) growth-inducing impacts of the project. Although growth inducement itself is not considered an environmental effect, it could potentially lead to foreseeable physical environmental effects, which are discussed under “Growth-Inducing Impacts” below.
5.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
Section 21100(b)(2)(A) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that an EIR shall include a detailed statement setting forth “in a separate section: any significant effect on the environment that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented.” Accordingly, this section provides a summary of significant environmental impacts of the project that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this Draft EIR describe the potential environmental impacts of the project and recommend various mitigation measures to reduce impacts, to the extent feasible. Chapter 4, “Cumulative Impacts,” determines whether the incremental effects of this project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects. After implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, most of the impacts associated with development of the project would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The following impacts are considered significant and unavoidable; that is, no feasible mitigation is available or the mitigation measures available were not enough to reduce the project’s impacts to a less- than-significant level. Note, this is only a summary of those impacts; it is important to review the discussions in Chapters 3 and 4 of this EIR to understand the full context of the impact determinations.
Implementation of the Sacramento Municipal Utility District Headquarters Campus Master Plan (SMUD HQCMP) would result in no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, following implementation of feasible mitigation measures.
5.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project. Section 15126.2(c) states:
Page 5-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible, because a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified.
Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if:
• the primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses,
• the project would involve uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project,
• the project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources, or
• the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of energy).
Development of the SMUD HQCMP would result in the continued commitment of the Headquarters Campus to office/utility-related uses, removing the plan area from any other potential use. Restoration of the Headquarters Campus to pre-developed conditions would not be feasible given the degree of disturbance, the urbanization of the area, and the level of capital investment by SMUD.
Resources that would be permanently and continually consumed by project implementation include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels; however, the amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in significant environmental impacts related to the unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources as stated in Section 3.6, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy.” Notwithstanding the project benefits identified in Section 3.6, construction and operational activities related to the project would result in the irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobiles and construction equipment. The use of these nonrenewable resources is expected to account for a minimal portion of the region’s resources and would not affect the availability of these resources for other needs within the region. Construction activities would not result in inefficient use of energy or natural resources. Construction contractors selected would use best available engineering techniques, construction and design practices, and equipment operating procedures. Long-term project operation would not result in substantial long-term consumption of energy and natural resources because the project would be designed using energy efficient technologies, as stated in Chapter 2, “Project Description.”
Page 5-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
With respect to operational activities, compliance with and exceedance of applicable building codes, as well as project mitigation measures or project requirements, would ensure that natural resources are conserved or recycled to the maximum extent feasible. It is also possible that new technologies or systems would emerge, or would become more cost-effective or user-friendly, that would further reduce the site’s reliance upon nonrenewable natural resources. Nonetheless, even with implementation of conservation measures, consumption of natural resources would generally increase with implementation of the SMUD HQCMP as staffing and structures are generally expected to increase.
5.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts
CEQA specifies that growth-inducing impacts of a project must be addressed in an EIR (Public Resources Code Section 21100[b][5]). Specifically, the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 15126.2[d]) states that the EIR shall discuss the ways in which the project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this analysis are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also, the EIR should discuss the characteristics of the project which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
Direct growth inducement would result if a project involved construction of new housing. Indirect growth inducement would result, for instance, if implementing a project resulted in any of the following:
• substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises);
• substantial short-term employment opportunities (e.g., construction employment) that indirectly stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new temporary employment demand; and/or
• removal of an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line with excess capacity through an undeveloped area).
The State CEQA Guidelines do not distinguish between planned and unplanned growth for purposes of considering whether a project would foster additional growth. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, to reach the conclusion that a project is growth-inducing as defined by CEQA, the EIR must find that the project would foster (i.e., promote or encourage) additional growth in economic activity, population, or housing, regardless of whether the growth is already approved by and consistent with local plans. The
Page 5-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 conclusion does not determine that induced growth is beneficial or detrimental, consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15126.2[d]).
If the analysis conducted for the EIR results in a determination that a project is growth- inducing, the next question is whether that growth may cause adverse effects on the environment. Environmental effects resulting from induced growth fit the CEQA definition of “indirect” effects in the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15358[a][2]). These indirect or secondary effects of growth may result in significant environmental impacts. CEQA does not require that the EIR speculate unduly about the precise location and site- specific characteristics of significant, indirect effects caused by induced growth, but a good-faith effort is required to disclose what is feasible to assess. Potential secondary effects of growth could include consequences – such as conversion of open space to developed uses, increased demand on community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, degradation of air and water quality, or degradation or loss of plant and wildlife habitat – that are the result of growth fostered by the project.
5.3.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts of the Project
This analysis examines the following potential growth-inducing impacts related to implementation of the project and assesses whether these effects are significant and adverse:
1. foster population growth and construction of housing;
2. eliminate obstacles to population growth;
3. foster economic growth;
4. affect service levels, facility capacity, or infrastructure demand; and
5. encourage or facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.
Implementation of the project would minimally foster short-term and long-term economic growth within the City of Sacramento as a result of new construction and operational employment opportunities. Redevelopment/modernization of the Central Plant is expected to begin in 2019 and could extend for approximately 12 months. During construction, the estimated peak level of construction workers at any given time is estimated to be approximately 30 workers and it would not be reasonable to expect that any construction workers would relocate to the project area for a temporary job. Currently, the Headquarters Campus provides employment for approximately 1,400 employees that live in the Sacramento region. Under the HQCMP, the number of on-site employees could increase to 2,235, an increase of 835 employees over a 20-year span. Some of these employees would likely be relocated from other SMUD facilities while other employees would be new in response to emerging demands and trends related to the production and distribution of energy resources.
Page 5-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Although the HQCMP would foster some economic and potentially minor population growth associated with new employment opportunities associated with the proposed HQCMP, this growth would be spread between the City of Sacramento and other adjacent communities (including the cities of West Sacramento, Woodland, Davis, Rancho Cordova, Elk Grove, and Folsom) and would not result in a notable increased demand for housing in localized areas. The project would also not remove barriers to population growth because no new or expanded (beyond what is currently planned by local jurisdictions) public infrastructure facilities would be installed. The project would directly connect to existing utility infrastructure (water, wastewater, natural gas, and electricity) and would not facilitate additional development.
In conclusion, the project has the potential to stimulate the economy both directly (by providing jobs) and indirectly (by creating a demand for local goods and services) in the region. Because of the general availability in the labor market and current unemployment rates, there would be an opportunity to fill some positions with local hires, while other positions would be filled by new employees that may locate themselves within the region. This in-migration would not substantially affect housing growth because new housing demands generated by the project would account for only a small percentage of existing housing. Further, the project would not meaningfully affect employment or other growth in the region, given the size of the regional economy. Therefore, the project would not contribute to substantial population growth, and there is no need to analyze impacts of growth beyond those included and evaluated in Chapter 4, “Cumulative Impacts.”
Page 5-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 5-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
6 Alternatives 6.1 Introduction
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15126.6(a) (State California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] Guidelines) requires environmental impact reports (EIRs) to describe “… a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather, it must consider a range of potentially feasible alternatives that will avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts of a project, and foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the “rule of reason.” This section of the State CEQA Guidelines also provides guidance regarding what the alternatives analysis should consider. Subsection (b) further states the purpose of the alternatives analysis is as follows:
Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.
The State CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the project. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative must be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed (CCR Section 15126.6[d]).
The State CEQA Guidelines further require that the “no project” alternative be considered (CCR Section 15126.6[e]). The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a project with the impacts of not approving the project. If the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires that the EIR “…shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” (CCR Section 15126[e][2]).
Page 6-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
In defining “feasibility” (e.g., “… feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project …”), CCR Section 15126.6(f) (1) states, in part:
Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives.
In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to consider the objectives of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by the lead agency’s decision-making body, here the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) Board of Directors. (See PRC Sections 21081.5, 21081[a] [3].)
6.2 Considerations for Selection of Alternatives
6.2.1 Attainment of Project Objectives
As described above, one factor that must be considered in selection of alternatives is the ability of a specific alternative to attain most of the basic objectives of the project (CCR Section 15126.6[a]). Chapter 2, “Project Description,” articulated SMUD’s project objectives for the proposed Headquarters Campus Master Plan (HQCMP) and are as follows:
• Provide strategic direction and long-term planning framework over the next 20 years, which would support streamlined development and ongoing maintenance of SMUD’s Headquarters Campus.
• Foster development of a campus befitting SMUD’s physical and historical setting as part of the Sacramento region and which is compatible with the City of Sacramento General Plan, the proposed 59th Street Re-Use Project, and planned improvements along 65th Street by the City of Sacramento.
• Consolidate and modernize SMUD resources based on current space needs.
• Promote alternatives to individual, fossil-fuel automobile transportation and promote pedestrian connectivity.
Page 6-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Improve connectivity between and with the local and regional community while maintaining SMUD’s security needs as an essential utility service in the Sacramento region.
• Establish design guidelines that will provide recommendations to create a compelling and unifying design vision for the campus.
6.2.2 Summary of Project Impacts
Sections 3.1 through 3.11 of this Draft EIR address the environmental impacts of the HQCMP. Potentially feasible alternatives were developed with consideration of avoiding or lessening the significant adverse impacts of the project. In summary, the significant impacts of the project are:
• Impact 3.1-2: Create a new source of light or glare.
• Impact 3.2-1: Short-term, construction-generated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5.
• Impact 3.3-2: Change the significance of a historic resource (historic landscape).
• Impact 3.3-3: Impacts to previously unidentified human remains.
• Impact 3.3-4: Impacts to paleontological resources.
• Impact 3.4-1: Disturbance of nesting Swainson’s hawk, white-tailed kite, or other avian species.
• Impact 3.4-2: Conflict with provisions of the Sacramento City Code intended to protect biological resources.
• Impact 3.5-1: Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
• Impact 3.5-2: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project.
• Impact 3.6-1: Greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation.
• Impact 3.7-1: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal of, or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous material, including sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
• Impact 3.7-2: Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.
• Impact 3.8-1: Short-term water quality impacts.
Page 6-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
• Impact 3.8-2: Alteration of the site’s existing drainage pattern.
• Impact 3.10-4: Impacts to bicycle facilities.
• Impact 3.11-1: Require construction of new wastewater/stormwater facilities.
• Cumulative impacts on local intersection operations.
Feasible mitigation is available and identified in Sections 3.1 through 3.11 and Chapter 4 of this Draft EIR that would reduce all project and cumulative impacts to less than significant.
6.2.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Evaluated Further
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides the following guidance in selecting a range of reasonable alternatives for the project. The range of potential alternatives for the project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency, but were rejected during the planning or scoping process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.
The following describes alternatives considered by SMUD but not evaluated further in this Draft EIR, and a brief description of the reasons for SMUD’s determination.
Maximum Acreage Alternative
Currently, SMUD owns property west of 59th Street and adjacent to the Headquarters Campus. This property is currently being considered as part of a mixed-use development by a private entity, which would help add housing to the city of Sacramento’s urban core, and important regional consideration in reducing overall commutes and greenhouse gases. Under this alternative, SMUD would retain control of the 59th Street property and distribute operations throughout the larger campus area. This would continue a pattern of underutilization of SMUDs urban assets. While this alternative could reduce localized impacts because of lesser development within a particular area, it would likely result in greater inefficiencies of SMUD operations and overall a greater level of management/security responsibilities and development under a campus master plan. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further analysis in this EIR.
Off-Site Alternative (East Campus Operations Center)
Under this alternative, the project would shift certain operations, including customer interface, management of power transmission and distribution and IT/communications, and other planned growth to the East-Campus Operations Center (ECOC), located on Bradshaw Road, south of U.S. Highway (US) 50. This would require construction of new facilities within the ECOC campus, primarily within available space along Kiefer Boulevard and east of Bradshaw Road, adjacent to a stormwater swale. Physical structures within
Page 6-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
the Headquarters Campus would be maintained in their current condition with no expansion of use, although functions within each structure may be redistributed/reallocated. This alternative would not achieve many of the project objectives, including improving connectivity between the local community and SMUD, because it would move customer functions to a less central location. The ECOC was never intended to provide customer serving uses and could reduce SMUD’s ability to maintain security within the ECOC campus. This alternative would also not achieve many of the sustainability features possible at the Headquarters Campus because of its location near transit and other methods of transportation. For these reasons, this off-site alternative was dismissed from further analysis in this EIR.
6.3 Alternatives Considered in Detail
Alternatives evaluated in this Draft EIR are:
• Alternative A (No Project), which assumes no development occurs on the project site;
• Alternative B (Maximum Preservation), which assumes maximum preservation of on-site campus structures through repurposing;
• Alternative C (Reduced Acreage), which assumes that SMUD would sell existing property along 59th Street and Folsom Boulevard and develop additional facilities within a reduced campus footprint; and
• Alternative D (Off-Site – Hedge), which assumes certain operations and future growth that would otherwise be intended for the Headquarters Campus under the HQCMP would be shifted to the Hedge Training Facility.
Each of these alternatives is described in more detail and analyzed below.
6.3.1 Alternative A (No Project)
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1) requires that the no project alternative be described and analyzed “to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the project with the impacts of not approving the project.” The no project analysis is required to discuss “the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published…as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (Section 15126.6[e][2]).
Under this alternative, SMUD would not adopt a long-term plan to guide the development and management of SMUD operations within its Headquarters Campus. Existing structures would be maintained in their current condition and would only be modified in response to specific requests from the various SMUD departments in response to immediate needs. This alternative would not be consistent with SMUD’s Asset and Vision Plan.
Page 6-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This alternative would not meet any of the objectives identified in Section 6.2.1, “Attainment of Project Objectives.”
Environmental Analysis
Aesthetics and Visual Resources No change in existing visual conditions would occur on the project site because no site improvements or other development would be implemented under Alternative A. The site would appear the same as the existing condition. By comparison, the project would redevelop the Headquarters Campus site with additional office, warehouse, and other utility-related buildings, on-site stormwater detention, open space, and surface/structure parking. Impacts associated with visual character and quality, and light and glare would be less than significant, as described in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics and Visual Resources.” Under Alternative A there would be no impacts, because the project site would not be altered. Therefore, aesthetic impacts associated with Alternative A, primarily because of a lack of change in the visual environment, would be less than the project. However, as noted in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics and Visual Resources,” implementation of the HQCMP would result in a more uniform and visually consistent/appealing campus. (Less Impact)
Air Quality Alternative A would not include any new development, and thus, would not generate new construction or operations-related air emissions related to the new uses. By comparison, development of the project would generate construction-related and operational emissions associated with new employee vehicle trips and new activities within the project site. On-site buildings that would be replaced/modernized under the HQCMP would not be modified under this alternative and would function less efficiently, resulting in greater building-related emissions for this alternative. However, when considered in concert with new employee vehicle emissions under the project, the HQCMP would result in greater emissions than Alternative A. Therefore, because there would be no physical changes to the project site that could affect air quality under Alternative A, there would be no air quality impacts. (Less Impact)
Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Under the HQCMP, there would be potential modifications in the vicinity of a designated historic resource, the Headquarters Building, whereas, under this alternative, no modifications to the existing campus would occur. Feasible mitigation measures have been identified for the HQCMP and would reduce potential impacts to a less-than- significant level. However, because there would be no changes to uses or existing conditions of the project site under Alternative A, there would be no potential impacts on cultural resources. (Less Impact)
Biological Resources Under Alternative A, the project site would remain the same as under the existing conditions. While the project site does not contain habitat for special-status plant and
Page 6-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018 animal species, nor riparian habitat, no changes associated with the HQCMP would occur; and, thus, there would be no impacts to biological resources under Alternative A. By contrast, the project could have significant effects, which would be mitigated, on: nesting birds and raptors and potential conflicts with applicable local regulations. Although the project includes mitigation that would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, complete avoidance under Alternative A would result in reduced impacts. (Less Impact)
Geology and Soils Earth-moving activities associated with construction, have the potential to affect geology and soil conditions. The types of impacts that could occur from development of the Headquarters Campus include: geotechnical issues associated with expansive soils and increased erosion because of ground disturbance. Existing regulations and permitting requirements, such as California Building Code (CBC) requirements, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions, and best management practices (BMPs), would minimize potential impacts to a less-than-significant level through implementation of feasible mitigation (Mitigation Measures 3.5-1 and 3.5-2). Because there would be no changes to the use or existing conditions of the project site under Alternative A, there would be no potential impacts on geology and soils. (Less Impact)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy No construction would occur under Alternative A, and no new vehicle trips would be generated on a daily basis. Further, no increase in electricity or natural gas consumption would occur. Therefore, there would be no increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; thus, this alternative would not exceed the identified thresholds of significance, similar to the HQCMP. However, GHG emissions are unique in that they are tied to overall population and economic activity; thus, GHG emissions that are avoided at the site would likely emerge elsewhere as SMUD continues to evaluate resources and respond to emerging energy trends. To that end, it is important to view the project in terms of GHG efficiency relative to what may occur without the project construction. The HQCMP has a relatively small carbon footprint for a project of its size, with very low building energy use, particularly with respect to fossil fuels. Nonetheless, in and of itself, emissions at the project site would be less under this alternative. (Less Impact)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials HQCMP-related construction activities associated with the Headquarters Campus would entail the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials; and release of hazardous materials from a site of known or potential contamination. In addition, the potential for contaminated soils near the Kramer property would continue although the potential for accident conditions would be less because of a lack of ground-disturbing activities under this alternative. However, feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact under the HQCMP to a less-than-significant level. Nonetheless, under Alternative A, there would be no construction activities or changes in land use, and thus, no potential for these types of impacts. Because there would be no changes to the use or existing conditions of
Page 6-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
the project site under Alternative A, there would be no potential impacts on hazards and hazardous materials. (Less Impact)
Hydrology and Water Quality Earth-moving activities associated with construction, have the potential to affect hydrology and water quality within the project site. Existing regulations and permitting requirement, such as NPDES permit conditions and a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. In contrast, under Alternative A, there would be no construction activities or changes in land use, and thus, no potential for these types of impacts. Because there would be no changes to the use or existing conditions of the project site under Alternative A, there would be no potential impacts on hydrology and water quality. (Less Impact)
Noise and Vibration Earth-moving activities associated with the HQCMP (e.g., grading, excavation, and building construction) would result in less-than-significant noise and vibration impacts. Through compliance with the City of Sacramento noise ordinance, these impacts would be less than significant, as described in Section 3.9, “Noise and Vibration.” In contrast, there would be no construction-generated noise or vibration under Alternative A, because there would be no construction-related activities. Furthermore, the existing uses on the Nishi site and West Olive Drive would remain the same as under the existing condition; and, there would be no new noise impacts. (Less Impact)
Transportation and Circulation Under Alternative A, there would be no changes to the project site, including new employment opportunities; thus, there would be no impacts on intersections, freeways, or local neighborhood traffic. This differs from the project, which would result in additional vehicle trips, bicycle trips, transit ridership, and pedestrians as a result of HQCMP implementation. As noted in Section 3.10, “Transportation and Circulation,” no significant impacts related to level of service (LOS), vehicle miles travelled (VMT), the pedestrian network, or construction traffic would occur, and with implementation of mitigation, impacts to the bicycle network would be less than significant. Nonetheless, because there would be no changes to the use or existing conditions of the project site under Alternative A, there would be no potential impacts on traffic and circulation. (Less Impact)
Utilities and Service System Under Alternative A, there would be no changes to the existing demand on utilities or requirements to alter or expand infrastructure. In contrast, while water supply, water infrastructure, landfill capacity, and wastewater treatment capacity are sufficient to meet HQCMP demands, infrastructure improvements under the Combined Sewer System (CSS) may be needed. Because there would be no changes to the use or existing conditions of the project site under Alternative A, there would be no potential impacts on utilities. (Less Impact)
Page 6-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
6.3.2 Alternative B (Maximum Preservation)
Under this alternative, SMUD would maintain more of the Headquarters Campus in its current form. Uses would be largely reoriented within the campus with little to no expansion in use. In total, this alternative would add approximately 75,000 square feet (sf) of useable space to the Headquarters Campus, compared to 220,000 sf under the HQCMP, and would be primarily associated with a utility/training center that would be constructed at the site of the former Kramer facility. The existing Auxiliary Building would be repurposed as an innovation center, while a new Auxiliary Building would be constructed adjacent to the existing Field Reporting Facility (FRF) building. Customer- interfacing uses within the Customer Service Center would be expanded, and visitor parking would be maintained along S Street. Throughout the site, existing entry and on- site circulation would largely be maintained.
This alternative would achieve most of the project objectives but not to the degree of the proposed HQCMP. It would not improve the current interface between the local community and SMUD to the extent of the proposed HQCMP, which would provide a structure separate from the Customer Service Center for customer interaction. It would also not consolidate and modernize SMUD resources to the extent of the HQCMP by virtue of modernization of existing structures versus new construction.
Environmental Analysis
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Under this alternative, more of the on-site structures would be maintained in their current form (e.g., the Auxiliary Building). Change in existing visual conditions would occur on the project site under this alternative but to a lesser degree than the HQCMP because of the lesser level of redevelopment. From the primary viewpoints identified in Section 3.1, “Aesthetics and Visual Resources,” the site would appear more consistent with existing conditions than under the HQCMP, however the lesser change would not result in measurably lesser impacts. Further, similar to the discussion of Alternative A above, the HQCMP, although it would result in changes in the visual environment, is intended to provide, visually, a more consistent/appealing campus. Impacts associated with visual character and quality, light, and glare under this alternative would be less than significant, and would require implementation of mitigation similar to the HQCMP. Therefore, overall aesthetic impacts associated with Alternative B would be incrementally less than the project. (Less Impact)
Air Quality Alternative B would include a lesser degree of redevelopment within the Headquarters Campus and would instead emphasize reuse of existing structures, most notably the Auxiliary Building. New construction or operations-related air emissions related to the new uses would occur, but due to the lesser overall square footage of construction, construction impacts would be less than those identified for the HQCMP. Additionally, the potential increase in employment and associated operational emissions would be less
Page 6-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
than the HQCMP under this alternative because of less available utility-related space within the campus. Therefore, because of the reduced construction effort (i.e., use of heavy construction equipment), impacts would be less than the HQCMP but remain less than significant under Alternative B. (Less Impact)
Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Under the HQCMP, there would be potential modifications in the vicinity of a designated historic resource, the Headquarters Building. Similarly, redevelopment under this alternative could also involve modifications in the vicinity of the Headquarters Building and necessitate implementation of the mitigation identified in Section 3.3, “Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources,” to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level, similar to the HQCMP. (Similar Impact)
Biological Resources While the project site does not contain habitat for special-status plant and animal species, nor riparian habitat, this alternative would result in lesser development than the HQCMP at the Headquarters Campus; and, thus, there would be less opportunity for impacts to nesting raptors and birds and less potential need for permits under the City of Sacramento’s tree protection ordinance. Mitigation, identical to that of the HQCMP, would be necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, however, the need for mitigation implementation would be less under this alternative. (Less Impact)
Geology and Soils Earth-moving activities associated with construction, have the potential to affect geology and soil conditions. The types of impacts that could occur from development of the Headquarters Campus include: geotechnical issues associated with expansive soils and increased erosion because of ground disturbance. Existing regulations and permitting requirements, such as CBC, NPDES, and BMPs, would minimize potential impacts to a less-than-significant level through implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Similar mitigation would be required under this alternative to reduce impacts to less than significant, however, because of the lesser level of development under Alternative B, potential changes in pervious/impervious surfaces, erosion potential, and stormwater flows would also be less. (Less Impact)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy As noted above for “Air Quality,” construction would occur to a lesser degree under Alternative B, and the number of new vehicle trips would be less than the HQCMP, as a result of a reduction in overall utility-related space, on a daily basis. Therefore, there would be a lesser increase in GHG emissions associated with this alternative, and this alternative would not exceed identified thresholds of significance, similar to the HQCMP. However, GHG emissions are unique in that they are tied to overall population and economic activity; thus, GHG emissions that are avoided at the site would likely emerge elsewhere as SMUD continues to evaluate resources and respond to emerging energy trends. To that end, it is important to view the project in terms of GHG efficiency relative
Page 6-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
to what may occur without the project construction. The HQCMP has a relatively small carbon footprint for a project of its size, with very low building energy use, particularly with respect to fossil fuels. Nonetheless, in and of itself, emissions at the project site would be less under this alternative. (Less Impact)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials HQCMP-related construction activities associated with the Headquarters Campus would entail the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials; and release of hazardous materials from a site of known or potential contamination. In addition, the potential for contaminated soils near the Kramer property would persist under this alternative, and because of the potential redevelopment of the Kramer property with a utility/training center, the potential for accident conditions would be similar to the HQCMP. However, feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact under the HQCMP to a less-than-significant level and would also be applied to implementation of Alternative B. Therefore, potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to the HQCMP and less than significant with mitigation. (Similar Impact)
Hydrology and Water Quality Earth-moving activities associated with construction, have the potential to affect hydrology and water quality within the project site. Existing regulations and permitting requirement, such as NPDES permit conditions and a SWPPP, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Due to on-site development and the potential for siltation/erosion, similar requirements/mitigation would be necessary under this alternative to reduce impacts to less than significant, however, because of the lesser level of development and ground disturbance under this alternative, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less. (Less Impact)
Noise and Vibration Earth-moving activities associated with the HQCMP (e.g., grading, excavation, and building construction) would result in less-than-significant noise and vibration impacts. Through compliance with the City of Sacramento noise ordinance, these impacts would be less than significant, as described in Section 3.9, “Noise and Vibration.” Similarly, Alternative B would involve construction activities within the Headquarters Campus and compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would ensure that impacts are less than significant. However, Alternative B would require lesser construction within the campus, especially along Folsom Boulevard, which represents the shortest distance between campus and nearby residences. Therefore, although impacts would be less than significant like the HQCMP, the degree to which noise and vibration levels would increase in the project area would be less because of a lesser overall construction effort. (Less Impact)
Transportation and Circulation Under Alternative B, no changes to the roadway network would occur, similar to the HQCMP. On-site employment would increase, thereby increase vehicle trips and the use of alternative transportation, although to a lesser degree than the HQCMP because of
Page 6-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
lesser on-campus capacity for employees. As noted in Section 3.10, “Transportation and Circulation,” no significant impacts related to LOS, VMT, the pedestrian network, or construction traffic would occur as a result of HQCMP implementation, and with implementation of mitigation, impacts to the bicycle network would also be less than significant. Nonetheless, because there would be lesser development under this alternative, there would be less impacts on traffic and circulation, although impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. (Less Impact)
Utilities and Service Systems Under Alternative B, the additional demand for utility service to the project site would be less than the HQCMP but would still increase from existing conditions as a result of additional utility-related square footage and increase employment. It is anticipated that impacts to water supply, water infrastructure, landfill capacity, and wastewater treatment capacity would remain less than significant and that infrastructure improvements to the CSS may still be needed. As a result, while impacts would be less under this alternative, the majority of utilities impacts (water supply, water infrastructure, wastewater treatment capacity, and landfill capacity) would remain less than significant and less than significant with mitigation with respect to the CSS. (Less Impact)
6.3.3 Alternative C (Reduced Acreage)
Under this alternative, SMUD would densify its operations within the plan area such that only 31 acres of the 38-acre HQCMP plan area would be necessary. The remaining 6 acres would be sold as two separate parcels, one along 59th Street and one along Folsom Boulevard. It would be up to the purchasing entity to determine future use, consistent with the City’s General Plan, and this analysis does not attempt to forecast the future use type or intensity. Under this alternative, SMUD would concentrate operations and new development around the existing Headquarters Building and Customer Service Center, which would be rebranded as the SMUD Corporate Center as part of this alternative. Development would include a new Community Energy/Innovation Center at the Kramer property to handle all customer/public interface. The site of the FRF would also be redeveloped with a newly proposed Utility Building and Training Center & Office. Auxiliary Building operations would be relocated to the ECOC under this alternative. This alternative would also include a parking structure to the west of the existing Headquarters Building, within an existing surface parking lot. Up to a 100,000 sf increase in SMUD- related operations would occur under this alternative, compared to the proposed HQCMP.
This alternative would achieve most of the project objectives but not to the degree of the proposed HQCMP. By densifying SMUD-related uses within the remaining acreage, it would consolidate SMUD resources but would not allow for SMUD to modify operations to meet growing/emerging trends to the degree of the project. Further, by densifying development within the project site, this alternative is more likely to affect the historical context/setting of the Headquarters Building and associated landscaping.
Page 6-12 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Environmental Analysis
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Under this alternative, on-site development would be concentrated within a smaller area, thereby increasing the number of structures within a certain area and potentially changing views of the site (e.g., from US 50) to a greater degree than the HQCMP. Due to the more constrained site, surface parking would likely be reduced and may require construction of a parking structure within the site. Landscaping along the periphery of the site would be maintained but within the Headquarters Campus, existing landscaping may be reduced to a greater degree than under the HQCMP. The site would continue to exhibit an urban visual setting, although the degree to which on-site views are increasingly urban would likely occur. This change, however, would not result in measurably greater impacts to the point where more significant aesthetic impacts would occur. Impacts associated with visual character and quality, and light and glare under this alternative would be less than significant, and would require implementation of mitigation, similar to the HQCMP. Nonetheless, overall aesthetic impacts associated with Alternative C would be incrementally greater than the project. (Greater Impact)
Air Quality Alternative C would include a lesser degree of redevelopment within a smaller portion of the project site. New construction or operations-related air emissions related to the new uses would occur but to a lesser degree because of a less overall square footage of construction. As a result, construction-related air quality impacts would be less than those identified for the HQCMP. Additionally, the potential increase in employment and associated operational emissions would be less than the HQCMP under this alternative due to less available utility-related space within the campus. Therefore, because of the reduced construction effort (i.e., use of heavy construction equipment), impacts would be less than the HQCMP but remain less than significant under Alternative C. (Less Impact)
Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Under the HQCMP, there would be potential modifications (e.g., additional landscaping, paths, benches, etc.) in the vicinity of a designated historic resource, the Headquarters Building. However, no new significant structures would be placed within the immediately vicinity of the Headquarters Building. Conversely, redevelopment under this alternative would likely involve the placement of additional structures in close proximity to (and may require the removal of) landscaping associated with the Headquarters Building that could be considered historic. This alternative may also result in a change in historical context of the Headquarters Building, depending on the final placement of structures. This alternative would necessitate implementation of the mitigation similar to that identified in Section 3.3, “Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources,” to reduce potential impacts, but may result in significant and unavoidable impacts to the Headquarters Building and associated landscaping, thereby resulting in greater impacts that the HQCMP. (Greater Impact)
Page 6-13 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Biological Resources While the project site does not contain habitat for special-status plant and animal species, nor riparian habitat, this alternative would result in on-campus development within a lesser footprint than the HQCMP; and, thus, there would be less opportunity for impacts to nesting raptors and birds and less potential need for permits under the City of Sacramento’s tree protection ordinance. Mitigation, identical to that of the HQCMP, would be necessary to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level, however, the need for mitigation implementation would be less under this alternative. (Less Impact)
Geology and Soils Earth-moving activities associated with construction, have the potential to affect geology and soil conditions. The types of impacts that could occur from development of the Headquarters Campus include: geotechnical issues associated with expansive soils and increased erosion because of ground disturbance. Existing regulations and permitting requirements, such as CBC, NPDES, and BMPs, would minimize potential impacts to a less-than-significant level through implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Similar mitigation would be required under this alternative to reduce impacts to less than significant, however, because of the smaller footprint of development under Alternative C, potential changes in pervious/impervious surfaces, erosion potential, and stormwater flows would also be less. (Less Impact)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy As noted above for “Air Quality,” construction would occur to a lesser degree under Alternative C, and the number of new vehicle trips would be less than the HQCMP, as a result of a reduction in overall utility-related space, on a daily basis. Therefore, there would be a lesser increase in GHG emissions associated with this alternative, and this alternative would not exceed identified thresholds of significance, similar to the HQCMP. However, GHG emissions are unique in that they are tied to overall population and economic activity; thus, GHG emissions that are avoided at the site would likely emerge elsewhere as SMUD continues to evaluate resources and respond to emerging energy trends. To that end, it is important to view the project in terms of GHG efficiency relative to what may occur without the project construction. The HQCMP has a relatively small carbon footprint for a project of its size, with very low building energy use, particularly with respect to fossil fuels. Nonetheless, in and of itself, emissions at the project site would be less under this alternative. (Less Impact)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials HQCMP-related construction activities associated with the Headquarters Campus would entail the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials; and release of hazardous materials from a site of known or potential contamination. In addition, the potential for contaminated soils near the Kramer property would persist under this alternative, and because of the potential redevelopment of the Kramer property, the potential for accident conditions would be similar to the HQCMP. However, feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact under the HQCMP to a less-than-significant level and
Page 6-14 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
would also be applied to implementation of Alternative C. Therefore, potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to the HQCMP and less than significant with mitigation. (Similar Impact)
Hydrology and Water Quality Earth-moving activities associated with construction, have the potential to affect hydrology and water quality within the project site. Existing regulations and permitting requirement, such as NPDES permit conditions and a SWPPP, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Due to potential development under this alternative and the potential for siltation/erosion, similar requirements/mitigation would be necessary under this alternative to reduce impacts to less than significant, however, because of the lesser footprint of development and corresponding reduction in overall ground disturbance under this alternative, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less. (Less Impact)
Noise and Vibration Earth-moving activities associated with the HQCMP (e.g., grading, excavation, and building construction) would result in less-than-significant noise and vibration impacts. Through compliance with the City of Sacramento noise ordinance, these impacts would be less than significant, as described in Section 3.9, “Noise and Vibration.” Similarly, Alternative C would involve construction activities within the Headquarters Campus and compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance would ensure that impacts are less than significant. However, Alternative C would require lesser construction within the campus, especially along 59th Street and Folsom Boulevard. As noted above, the residences located across Folsom Boulevard to the north represent the nearest sensitive receptors to the campus, seconded by the multi-family residences located north of the Customer Service Center. Due to the greater degree of construction near the Customer Service Center that would occur under this alternative, the potential construction noise impact of implementation of this alternative would be similar to the HQCMP, even though residences north of Folsom Boulevard would be less likely to perceive construction noise. Therefore, construction-related impacts would be less than significant and similar to the HQCMP. With respect to operational noise, this alternative would result in fewer employee trips resulting in a smaller incremental increase in overall roadway noise. However, because the difference in roadway noise levels would likely be indiscernible, impacts would be considered similar to the HQCMP and less than significant. (Similar Impact)
Transportation and Circulation Under Alternative C, no changes to the roadway network would occur, similar to the HQCMP. Overall, Alternative C would generate less traffic because of reduced on-site employment, compared to the HQCMP. However, because of the redistribution of uses within the reduced campus, especially the utility/training center within the northern portion of campus, employee trips would be distributed differently compared to the HQCMP and could result in additional employee trips along Folsom Boulevard compared to the HQCMP. However, along Folsom Boulevard, LOS F is considered acceptable by the City
Page 6-15 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
at both the 59th and 65th streets intersections. As a result, additional significant impacts beyond those identified for the HQCMP are not anticipated. As noted in Section 3.10, “Transportation and Circulation,” no significant impacts related to LOS, VMT, the pedestrian network, or construction traffic would occur as a result of HQCMP implementation, and with implementation of mitigation, impacts to the bicycle network would also be less than significant. Nonetheless, because there would be lesser development under this alternative, there would be an overall reduction in transportation impacts compared to the HQCMP, although impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. (Less Impact)
Utilities and Service Systems Under Alternative C, the additional demand for utility service to the project site would be less than the HQCMP but would still increase from existing conditions as a result of additional utility-related square footage and increase employment. It is anticipated that impacts to water supply, water infrastructure, landfill capacity, and wastewater treatment capacity would remain less than significant and that infrastructure improvements to the CSS may still be needed. As a result, while impacts would be less under this alternative, the majority of utilities impacts (water supply, water infrastructure, wastewater treatment capacity, and landfill capacity) would remain less than significant and less than significant with mitigation with respect to the CSS. (Less Impact)
6.3.4 Alternative D (Off-Site – Hedge)
Under this alternative, SMUD would shift certain operations, including management of power transmission and distribution and IT/communications, and planned growth to the Hedge Training Facility, which is located southeast of Hedge Avenue and Elder Creek Road, approximately 5 miles southeast of the Headquarters Campus. This would require construction of new facilities within the Hedge Facility and may require removal of on-site solar facilities at Hedge. Physical structures within the Headquarters Campus would be maintained in their current condition with no expansion of use, although functions within each structure may be redistributed/ reallocated. The SMUD Customer Service Center would continue to function as the point of interface with the surrounding community and SMUD customers.
This alternative would also achieve most of the project objectives but not to the degree of the proposed HQCMP. SMUD would not adopt a long-term plan to guide the development and management of SMUD operations within its Headquarters Campus but would consolidate SMUD resources. However, the Hedge Training Facility is not located in an area proximate to the transit and alternative transportation opportunities to the extent that the Headquarters Campus has nearby and may increase fossil fuel consumption and reduce the degree of bicycle/pedestrian travel by SMUD employees.
Page 6-16 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Environmental Analysis
Aesthetics and Visual Resources Under Alternative D, no development of the HQCMP would occur, similar to Alternative A, and as a result, no changes in existing visual conditions or viewpoints would occur at or near the Headquarters Campus. This alternative would, however, alter aesthetic conditions at the Hedge Training Facility, located southeast of the intersection of Hedge Avenue and Elder Creek Road. Development in the area primarily consists of 1- to 2-story, single-family residences and numerous power lines and associated towers. The existing Hedge Training Facility is set back from both Elder Creek Road and Hedge Avenue. The placement of additional facilities at the Hedge Training Facility would likely result in changes to visual resources in the area, however, because of the anticipated distance between publicly accessible viewpoints and potential on-site structures, as well as the currently developed condition of the Hedge Training Facility with utility-related uses, this is not anticipated to be a substantial adverse change, similar to the HQCMP. Therefore, although this alternative would not result in changes in aesthetic conditions to the Headquarters Campus (i.e., less impact at the Headquarters Campus), it would result in similar aesthetic and visual resources impacts at the off-site location. (Similar Impact)
Air Quality Both the project and Alternative D would generate similar levels of construction-related emissions associated with vehicle trips and activities because there would be similar levels of construction activities required. Construction-related impacts would be similar to the HQCMP and less than significant. However, Alternative D would result in greater vehicles trip generation because of its increased distance from US 50 and alternative transportation opportunities (i.e., more people would drive rather than use alternate forms of transportation). Depending on where the additional employees live, this increase in air emissions could exceed threshold requirements associated with SMAQMD. (Greater Impact; potential significant unavoidable impacts to air quality during operation)
Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources Earth-moving activities generally have the potential to disturb archaeological and tribal cultural resources or may result in accidental discovery of human remains. Under this alternative, the Hedge Training Facility is less urbanized and likely has been subject to less historic ground disturbance than the Headquarters Campus. As a result, the potential for encountering archaeological or tribal cultural resources during construction activities (e.g., grading, excavation) is considered greater and could result in significant impacts related to the discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. However, feasible mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. With respect to historic structures, no historic resources are located within the limits of the Hedge Training Facility, unlike the Headquarters Campus, and as a result, impacts to historic resources would not occur. Therefore, impacts to historic resources would be less than the HQCMP. (Greater Impact – Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources; Less Impact – Historic Resources)
Page 6-17 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Biological Resources
While the Headquarters Campus does not contain habitat for special-status plant and animal species, nor riparian habitat, this alternative would involve additional development at a less urbanized location and may result in additional impacts to biological resources. Mitigation, similar to that of the HQCMP, would be necessary to reduce impacts to nesting birds and raptors to a less-than-significant level, however, additional impacts, depending on the specific location of facilities at the Hedge Training Facility, may occur. As a result, impacts to biological resources could be greater under this alternative. (Greater Impact)
Geology and Soils
Earth-moving activities associated with construction, have the potential to affect geology and soil conditions. The types of impacts that could occur from development of the Headquarters Campus, include: geotechnical issues associated with expansive soils and increased erosion because of ground disturbance. Existing regulations and permitting requirements, such as CBC, NPDES, and BMPs, would minimize potential impacts to a less-than-significant level through implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Similar mitigation would be required under this alternative to reduce impacts to less than significant at the Hedge Training Facility. (Similar Impact)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy Compared to the project, Alternative D would result in the construction of new facilities at the Hedge Training Facility. These facilities are anticipated to be similar in size and scale and require the same level of construction activities, thereby resulting in similar construction-related GHG emissions. In contrast to the HQCMP, operation of Alternative D is likely to result in more/longer vehicle trips because of this alternative’s location further from freeway access and alternative transportation opportunities. Greater vehicle trips and associated VMT would likely result in greater GHG emissions. Further, implementation of this alternative may require removal of some or all of the on-site solar facilities at the Hedge Training Facility, which currently reduce overall GHG emissions in the region. Implementation of mitigation, as described for the HQCMP, would likely reduce impacts to less than significant, but implementation of additional sustainability features or purchase of GHG reduction credits may be necessary to reduce emissions below established thresholds. (Greater Impact)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Construction activities associated this alternative would entail the transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials and may require some on-site remediation, similar to the HQCMP. In addition, disruption of area roadways during construction may hinder traffic flow and affect emergency response. However, feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level, similar to the project. As a result, potential impacts would be similar under this alternative. (Similar Impact)
Page 6-18 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Hydrology and Water Quality Earth-moving activities associated with construction, have the potential to affect hydrology and water quality within the project site. Existing regulations and permitting requirement, such as NPDES permit conditions and a SWPPP, would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Similar requirements/mitigation would be necessary under this alternative to reduce impacts associated with development of the Hedge Training Facility to less than significant. (Similar Impact)
Noise and Vibration Earth-moving activities (e.g., grading, excavation) associated with this alternative would result in noise and vibration impacts. However, nearby receptors are located approximately 350 feet from potential construction limits. As a result, construction impacts would be less under this alternative because of reduced noise levels at nearby receptors, although construction would be required to comply with the Sacramento County Noise Ordinance. While this alternative would likely result in longer/more vehicle trips during operation, the degree to which additional trips would occur are not anticipated to substantially increase roadway noise levels such that a significant impact would occur. As a result, operational noise impacts would be similar, although construction noise and vibration impacts would be less under this alternative. (Less Impact)
Transportation and Circulation Although at different locations, both the HQCMP and Alternative D would generate similar levels of construction-related vehicle trips and activities because similar levels of construction activities would be required. In addition, vehicle trips into and out of the respective sites would increase with operation of new structures and associated increases in on-site employment. However, the Headquarters Campus site is in closer proximity to US 50 and alternative transportation facilities. As a result, additional development and operation within the Hedge Training Facility site could cause greater congestion and adverse effects on intersections, even with fair share contributions to future roadway improvements similar to the project. These potential impacts would occur in areas surrounding the Hedge Avenue and Elder Creek Road intersections, rather than areas around the Headquarters Campus. Further studies would need to be conducted to determine the extent to which these impacts would occur; however, it is assumed that Alternative D would cause greater roadway impacts because of the increased need to use more surface streets for circulation. (Greater Impact)
Utilities and Service Systems Under the HQCMP, utility capacity is sufficient to meet the project demands; however, infrastructure improvements related to the CSS may be necessary during buildout of the HQCMP. Due to the more remote location of Alternative D, implementation of this alternative may require expansion of additional utility infrastructure. As a result, impacts would likely be greater, but it is anticipated that feasible mitigation (e.g., expansion of infrastructure) would be available to reduce impacts to less than significant. (Greater Impact)
Page 6-19 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Other Impacts Upon initial evaluation of Alternative D, additional potentially significant impacts may occur within CEQA issue areas that were scoped out for the HQCMP. For example, the Hedge Training Facility has also been designated for residential development through previous community planning efforts by Sacramento County, not administrative offices, and could result in potential land use conflicts.
6.4 Comparison of Alternatives
Table 6-1 summarizes the environmental analyses provided above for the evaluated alternatives to the HQCMP.
Table 6-1 Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives in Relation to the Project Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative A Resource Area Project (Maximum (Reduced (Off-Site – (No Project) Preservation) Acreage) Hedge) Aesthetics LTS/M Less Less Greater Similar Air Quality LTS Less Less Less Greater Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal LTS/M Less Similar Greater Less/Greater Cultural Resources Biological Resources LTS/M Less Less Less Greater Geology and Soils LTS/M Less Less Less Similar Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate LTS/M Less Less Less Greater Change, and Energy Hazards and LTS/M Less Similar Similar Similar Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water LTS/M Less Less Less Similar Quality Noise and Vibration LTS Less Less Similar Less Transportation and LTS/M Less Less Less Greater Circulation Utilities and Service LTS/M Less Less Less Greater Systems Other Impacts NI/LTS N/A N/A N/A Greater Notes: N/A – Not applicable; NI – No Impact; LTS – Less-than-significant impacts; LTS/M – Less-than-significant impacts with mitigation incorporated. Source: Compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2017
Page 6-20 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative
CCR Section 15126.6 suggests that an EIR should identify the “environmentally superior” alternative. “If the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” As shown in Summary of Project Impacts, there would be no significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the project. Feasible mitigation is available for all potentially significant impacts associated with HQCMP implementation.
When considering objectives, the HQCMP would best meet the project objectives, as stated in Chapter 2, “Project Description.” In contrast, Alternative B would not improve the current interface between the local community and SMUD to the extent of the proposed HQCMP, nor would it consolidate and modernize SMUD resources to the extent of the HQCMP. Similarly, Alternative C, by densifying development, would be more likely to affect the historical context/setting of the Headquarters Building and associated landscaping. In addition, it would limit SMUD’s ability to respond to changes in operational needs within the Headquarters Campus. Alternative D would not involve the adoption of a long-term plan for SMUD’s Headquarters Campus but would consolidate SMUD resources. Therefore, it achieves some but not all of the project objectives. Because there would be no project under Alternative A, it would fail to meet the objectives of the project.
Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15126.6 [e][2]), because the environmentally superior alternative was identified as the No Project Alternative, another environmentally superior alternative shall be identified. Based on the environmental analysis contained in this Draft EIR, Alternative B would result in less impacts compared to the HQCMP. However, and as noted above, no significant and unavoidable impacts would occur under the HQCMP and mitigation similar to the HQCMP would likely be required for Alternative B. Therefore, the environmental impact differences between the HQCMP and Alternative B are not substantial enough that one is clearly superior over the other.
Page 6-21 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 6-22 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
EIR Authors and Persons Consulted Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Lead Agency) Jose Bodipo-Memba ...... Manager, Environmental Services Rob Ferrera ...... CEQA Project Manager Jerry Park ...... HQCMP Project Manager
Ascent Environmental (EIR preparation) Gary Jakobs, AICP ...... Principal Chris Mundhenk ...... Project Manager Alta Cunningham ...... Assistant Project Manager, Cultural Resources Megan Diliberti ...... Aesthetics, Utilities Kirsten Burrowes ...... Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Cumulative Impacts Kai Lord-Farmer ...... Air Quality, Climate Change Julia Wilson ...... Noise Dimitri Antoniou ...... Air Quality, Climate Change Review Lisa Merry ...... GIS Specialist Phi Ngo ...... GIS Specialist Gayiety Lane ...... Production Specialist Michele Mattei ...... Production Specialist
ICF International (cultural resources) Susan Lassell ...... Project Director Christian Havelaar ...... Cultural Resources Lead Amanda Reese ...... Cultural Resources Specialist Erik Allen ...... Archaeologist
Fehr & Peers (transportation and traffic) Alan Telford ...... Principal Jimmy Fong ...... Project Manager
Page 7-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 7-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
References
Executive Summary
No references cited.
Chapter 1, Introduction
No references cited.
Chapter 2, Project Description
SMUD. 2018. Headquarters Campus Master Plan – Draft.
SMUD. See Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
Chapter 3, Existing Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation
No references cited.
Section 3.1, Aesthetic and Visual Resources
California Department of Transportation. 2017. List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/lap/livability/scenic-highways/index.html. Accessed September 13, 2017.
Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.
Federal Highway Administration. 2015. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of Highway Projects. Publication No. FHWA-HEP-15-029.
FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.
USDA-FS. See U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics. A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook Number 701. Washington D.C.
Section 3.2, Air Quality
CARB. See California Air Resources Board.
California Air Resources Board. 2013. California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality— 2013 Edition. Available:
Page 8-1 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac13.htm. Accessed August 14, 2017.
———. 2016a (May). Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf. Accessed August 14, 2017.
———. 2016b. 2016 SIP Emission Projection Data. 2012 Estimated Annual Average Emissions. Sacramento County. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2017/emssumcat_query.php?F_DIV=- 4&F_DD=Y&F_YR=2012&F_SEASON=A&SP=SIP105ADJ&F_AREA=CO&F_C O=34. Accessed August 14, 2017.
———. 2017. Global Ozone and Its Effects on California. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/ict/ozone.htm. Accessed February 26, 2018.
California Energy Commission. 2006 (March). California Commercial End-Use Survey. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/index.html. Accessed December 10, 2017.
———. 2015 (June). Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015- 037-CMF.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2017.
City of Sacramento. 2015. Sacramento 2035 General Plan. Adopted March 3, 2015. Sacramento, CA.
EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Fehr and Peers. 2017. Transportation Analysis Data for Air Quality and Noise Analysis SMUD HQCMP. Prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultant.
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments (2015 Guidance). Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf Accessed December 10, 2017.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2016a. Air Quality Pollutants and Standards. Available: http://www.airquality.org/Air-Quality-Health/Air-Quality- Pollutants-and-Standards. Accessed August 14, 2017.
———. 2016b. Permitted Locations. Available: http://www.airquality.org/businesses/permits-registration-programs/permitted- locations. Accessed August 14, 2017.
Page 8-2 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
———. 2016c (December). Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Available: http://www.airquality.org/Residents/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/CEQA- Guidance-Tools. Accessed December 10, 2017.
SMAQMD. See Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003 (September). Particle Pollution and Your Health. Available: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P1001EX6.txt. Accessed August 14, 2017.
———. 2016. Basic Information about NO2. Available: https://www.epa.gov/no2- pollution/basic-information-about-no2#Effects. Last updated September 8, 2016. Accessed August 14, 2017.
———. 2017a. Health Effects of Ozone Pollution. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/health-effects-ozone-pollution. Last updated February 27, 2017. Accessed August 14, 2017.
———. 2017b. Ozone Pollution. Available: https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution. Last updated June 8, 2017. Accessed August 14, 2017.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2016. Sacramento 5 ESE, California Period of Monthly Climate Summary. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7633. Accessed August 14, 2017.
———. 2017. Average Wind Direction. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/climatedata/climtables/westwinddir/. Accessed August 14, 2017.
WRCC. See Western Regional Climate Center.
Zhu, Yifang, William C. Hinds, Seongheon Kim, and Constantinos Sioutas. 2002. Concentration and Size Distribution of Ultrafine Particles Near a Major Highway. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association. Vol. 52, Iss. 9.
Section 3.3, Archaeological, Historical, and Tribal Cultural Resources
ICF. 2017. Cultural Resources Survey Report for the SMUD Headquarters Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report, Sacramento, Sacramento County.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2014 (December). Sacramento Municipal District Headquarters Building and Site Cultural Landscape Report. Sacramento, CA. Prepared by AECOM.
———. 2015 (March). Headquarters Building and Site Rehabilitation Project – Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Sacramento, CA. Prepared by AECOM.
Page 8-3 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
University of the California Museum of Paleontology. 2017. Localities Search. Available: http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/loc.html. Accessed December 21, 2017.
U.S. Geological Survey, Geologic Names Committee. 2010. Divisions of Geologic Time— Major Chronostratigraphic and Geochronologic Units: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010–3059. Electronic document, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3059/pdf/FS10-3059.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2015.
USGS. See United States Geological Survey.
Section 3.4, Biological Resources
Ascent Environmental. 2017 (April). Biological Resources Technical Report for the Headquarters Campus Master Plan Environmental Impact Report.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2018. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. Sacramento, CA. September. Available https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural- Communities/List. January 24. Accessed March 7, 2018.
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed December 2016, updated January 12, 2017.
California Natural Diversity Database, Biogeographic Data Branch, Department of Fish and Wildlife. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed December 2016, updated January 12, 2017.
City of Sacramento. 2014. Zoning Map Book and Index Page. Available: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/community- development/resources/maps/zoning-maps. Accessed March 7, 2018.
———. 2015. Sacramento 2035 General Plan. March. Available: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Community-Development/Resources/Online- Library/General-Plan. Accessed January 27, 2017.
———. 2016. Sacramento City Code Title 12 Streets, Sidewalks, and Public Places. Chapter 12.56 Tree Planting, Maintenance, and Conservation. Available: https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Public- Works/Maintenance-Services/SCC-1256.pdf?la=en. Accessed January 12, 2017.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2014. Sacramento Municipal District Headquarters Building and Site Rehabilitation Project: Cultural Landscape Report. December. Sacramento, CA.
Page 8-4 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) Information for Planning and Conservation (IPAC) Trust Resources Report. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Updated January 13, 2017.
Section 3.5, Geology and Soils
City of Sacramento. 2014. Sacramento 2035 General Plan Background Report.
Hart, E.W. and W.A. Bryant. 2018. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. (Special Publication 42 Interim Revision 2018). Sacramento, California: California Division of Mines and Geology.
Sacramento County. 2017 (September). County of Sacramento General Plan, Conservation and Safety Elements. Adopted December 15, 1993; amended September 26, 2017. Available: http://www.per.saccounty.net/PlansandProjects In-Progress/Pages/GeneralPlan.aspx. Accessed November 2017.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2015 (March). Headquarters Building and Site Rehabilitation Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by AECOM.
NRCS. See U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Web Soil Survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed February 21, 2018.
U.S. Dept of State Geographer. 2018. Google Earth Pro. Accessed February 21, 2018.
Section 3.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Climate Change, and Energy
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2016. California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.2. Available: http://www.caleemod.com/.
CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association.
CARB. See California Air Resources Board.
Cal-Adapt. 2017. Annual Averages Tool. Available: http://cal-adapt.org/tools/annual- averages/#climatevar=tasmax&scenario=rcp45&lat=38.53125&lng=- 121.40625&boundary=locagrid&units=fahrenheit. Accessed December 3, 2017.
California Air Resources Board. 2003 (August). Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Joint Agency Report by California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/carefinery/ab2076final.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2017.
Page 8-5 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
______. 2012 (January). California Air Resources Board Approves Advanced Clean Car Rules. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/newsrelease.php?id=282. Accessed August 15, 2017.
______. 2013. Facts About California’s Sustainable Communities Plans. Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG). Available://www.arb.ca.gov/ cc/sb375/sacog_fact_sheet.pdf. Last revised October 2, 2013. Accessed August 15, 2017.
______. 2014 (May). First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_chang e_scoping_plan.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2017.
______. 2016. California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/acc/acc.htm. Accessed January 3, 2017.
______. 2017 (November). The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed December, 2017.
California Energy Commission. 2006 (March). California Commercial End-Use Survey. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/index.html. Accessed December 10, 2017.
———. 2014. 2013 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2013publications/CEC-100-2013-001/CEC-100-2013- 001-CMF.pdf. Accessed December 15, 2017.
———. 2015 (June). Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2015publications/CEC-400-2015-037/CEC-400-2015- 037-CMF.pdf. Accessed August 15, 2017.
———. 2018 (January). 2017 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Available: http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/17-IEPR- 01/TN222377_20180126T144311_Proposed_Final_2017_Integrated_Energy_Po licy_Report_Clean_Versi.pdf. Accessed February 22, 2018.
California Natural Resources Agency. 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Available: http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf. Accessed August 16, 2017.
———. 2012. Our Changing Climate: Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks of Climate Change in California. Available: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterplan/docs/cwpu2013/Final/vol4/climate_change/05Cl imate_Action_Team_3_Assesment.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2017.
Page 8-6 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
———. 2017 (May). DRAFT REPORT: Safeguarding California Plan: 2017 Update. Available: http://resources.ca.gov/climate/safeguarding/. Accessed June 19, 2017.
California Ocean Protection Council. 2017 Draft State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document. Available: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/_media_library/2017/11/State-of-California- Sea-Level-Rise-Guidance_draft-final_11.15.17.pdf Accessed: February 12th 2018.
CEC. See California Energy Commission.
Center for Sustainable Energy. 2017. CVRP Rebate Statistics. Administered for the California Air Resources Board. Available: https://cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/rebate-statistics. Last updated August 1, 2017. Accessed August 15, 2017.
City of Sacramento. 2012 (January). Sacramento Climate Action Plan. Available: http://ascentenvironmental.com/files/9714/0537/0505/Sacramento_CAP_Final_D raft.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2017.
———. 2015. Sacramento 2035 General Plan. Adopted March 3, 2015. Sacramento, CA.
———. 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Adopted June 20, 2016. Sacramento, CA.
CNRA. See California Natural Resources Agency.
EIA. See Energy Information Administration.
Energy Information Administration. 2014. California Energy Highlight. 2014 EIA reports and publications. Available: https://www.eia.gov/state/state_one_pager/California.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2017.
EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Federal Register. 2010. Vol. 75, No. 88, May 7, 2010. Available: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-10-15/pdf/2012-21972.pdf.
Fehr and Peers. 2017. Transportation Analysis Data for Air Quality and Noise Analysis SMUD HQCMP. Prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultant.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. Accessed January 3, 2017.
Page 8-7 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
———. 2014 (November). Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Approved Summary for Policymakers. Available at www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/. Accessed December 7, 2017.
IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2016. AFV Acquisitions by Regulated Fleets (by Fuel Type). National Renewable Energy Laboratory EPAct State and Alternative Fuel Provider Fleet Task. Available: https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10354. Last updated August 2016. Accessed August 15, 2017.
NREL. See National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2016 (December). CEQA Guide. Available: http://airquality.org/Residents/CEQA-Land-Use- Planning/CEQA-Guidance-Tools. Accessed April 17, 2017.
SMAQMD. See Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.
U.S. Department of Energy. 2012b (June). Annual Energy Outlook 2012 with Projections to 2035. Available: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2012).pdf. Accessed April 24, 2017.
______. 2014. SolarShares: Expanding Access to Solar Power SMUD Available: http://solaroutreach.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/NCSC-SMUD-SolarShares- Case-Study_Final.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2017.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017a. Midterm Evaluation of Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Model Years 2022-2025. Available: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/midterm- evaluation-light-duty-vehicle-greenhouse-gas. Last updated August 10, 2017. Accessed August 15, 2017.
______. 2017b. Energy Star Certified Products. Available: https:// www.energystar.gov/products?s=footer. Accessed June 27, 2017.
Section 3.7, Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Brown and Caldwell. 2015. Site Characterization Report. November 13.
CalFire. 2007 (October). Sacramento County Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA.
Sacramento County. 2012 (December). County of Sacramento Emergency Operations Plan.
Page 8-8 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
State Water Resources Control Board. 2015a. Former Kramer Carton Co. Facility GeoTracker Case Summary. Available: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case_summary?global_id=T10000006064. Accessed December 28, 2017.
———. 2015b. Former Community Linen Site GeoTracker Case Summary. Available: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/case_summary?global_id=T10000004660. Accessed December 28, 2017.
SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.
Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality
California Department of Water Resources. 2004. California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118, South American Subbasin. Last updated February 27, 2004. Sacramento, CA.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2012. National Flood Hazard Layer. Panel 06067C0195H, Effective August 16, 2012. Available: https://msc.fema.gov. Accessed February 22, 2018.
Sacramento County. 2011. General Plan Safety Element Background to the 1993 General Plan. Amended November 9, 2011.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2015 (March). Headquarters Building and Site Rehabilitation Project Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by AECOM.
Section 3.9, Noise and Vibration
American National Standard Institute. 2006. American National Standard Specification for Sound Level Meters, ANSI S1.4-1983-2006. New York, NY.
ANSI. See American National Standard Institute.
California Department of Transportation. 2002 (January). California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. Prepared by Shutt Moen Associates.
———. 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. Prepared by Jones & Stokes.
———. 2009 (November). Technical Noise Supplement. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes.
Egan, M. David. 2007. Architectural Acoustics. J. Ross Publishing. Fort Lauderdale, FL.
EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Page 8-9 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
Federal Highway Administration. 1978 (December). Federal Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA RD 77-108. Washington DC.
———. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05-054. Final Report. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA 05-01.
Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc.
FHWA. See Federal Highway Administration.
FTA. See Federal Transit Administration.
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2003. General Plan Guidelines. Pages 250-251. Sacramento, CA.
———. 2017. General Plan Guidelines. Sacramento, CA.
OPR. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research.
Section 3.10, Transportation and Circulation
California Department of Transportation. 2002. Caltrans Traffic Impact Study Guidelines.
———. 2014. District 3 United States Route 50 Transportation Concept Report and Corridor Management System Plan. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist3/departments/planning/tcr/tcr50.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2018.
Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.
City of Sacramento. 2014 (August). Draft Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan Update.
———. 2015. 2035 General Plan. Adopted on March 3, 2015.
Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2015. Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition.
ITE. See Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Sacramento Area Council of Governments. 2016. 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. Final Plan Release February 18, 2016. Available: https://www.sacog.org/2016-mtpscs. Accessed January 12, 2018.
Sacramento Regional Transit. 2016. Quarterly Ridership Report – Period Ending June 30, 2016. Available:
Page 8-10 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
http://www.sacrt.com/documents/quarterly/Q2Ridership16.pdf. Accessed January 12, 2018.
———. 2018. RT Bus & Light Rail – Routes and Schedules. Available: http://www.sacrt.com/schedules/current/routes.stm. Accessed January 12, 2018.
SacRT. See Sacramento Regional Transit.
Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual.
Section 3.11, Utilities and Service Systems
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2015. Facility Site/ Summary Details: Yolo County Central Landfill. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/57-AA-0001/Detail/. Accessed December 18, 2017.
_____. 2017a. Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Detail: City of Sacramento in 2016. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Reports/DiversionProgram/JurisdictionDiv ersionDetail.aspx?JurisdictionID=418&Year=2016/. Accessed January 4, 2018.
_____. 2017b. Facility Site/Summary Details: Sacramento County Landfill (Kiefer). Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/34-AA- 0001/Detail/. Accessed December 18, 2017.
_____. 2017c. Facility Site/Summary Details: Forward Landfill. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/39-AA-0015/Detail/. Accessed December 18, 2017.
_____. 2017d. Facility Site/ Summary Details: L and D Landfill. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/34-AA-0020/Detail/. Accessed December 18, 2017.
_____. 2017e. State of Disposal and Recycling in California – 2017 Update.
CalRecycle. See California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
City of Sacramento. 2013. Construction & Demolition Management Plan. Available: http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/General-Services/RSW/Collection- Services/Recycling/Construction-andDemolition.
_____. 2015a. About RSW. Available: http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/General- Services/RSW/AboutRSW. Accessed December 15, 2017.
_____. 2015b. City’s 2014 CalRecycle Electronic Annual Report.
Page 8-11 Headquarters Campus Master Plan EIR April 2018
_____. 2016 (June). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by West Yost Associates.
Ewart, Brett. Senior Engineer at the City of Sacramento. 2017. Personal Communication with Chris Mundhenk and Megan Diliberti on December 9, 2017.
Regional San. See Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District.
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District. 2014. EchoWater Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.: 2012052017). Prepared by Ascent Environmental.
Sacramento Municipal Utility District. 2015 (March). Sacramento Municipal Utility District Headquarters Building and Site Rehabilitation Project – Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration.
_____. 2017 (December). Headquarters Campus Master Plan – Draft.
Sacramento Regional Solid Waste Authority. 2015. Regulating Commercial Solid Waste Collection, Transportation, or Disposal. Available: http://www.swa.saccounty.net/Documents/SWA%20Title%20II.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2017.
SMUD. See Sacramento Municipal Utility District.
State of Nevada Bureau of Waste Management. 2013. Lockwood Regional Landfill. Available: http://ndep.nv.gov/bwm/landfill_lockwood.htm. Accessed December 18, 2017.Accessed October 16.
SWA. See Sacramento Regional Solid Waste Authority.
Waste Management. 2017. Lockwood Regional Landfill Available: https://www.wmsolutions.com/locations/details/id/210. Accessed December 18, 2017.
Chapter 4, Cumulative Impacts
City of Sacramento. 2017. Sacramento Community Development Tacker. Available: https://sacramento.civicinsight.com/. Accessed December 18, 2017.
Chapter 5, Other CEQA Sections
No references cited.
Chapter 6, Alternatives
No references cited.
Page 8-12