CONTROL NUMBER: PLNP2014-00118 NAME: Elverta Park

Elverta Park
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DIVISION
ADDENDUM TO PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT INFORMATION
CONTROL NUMBER: PLNP2014-00118
NAME: Elverta Park
LOCATION: The project site is located at 2850 Elverta Road, on the south side of Elverta
Road, approximately 1,100 feet west of North Watt Avenue, in the Antelope Community.
ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 203-0090-007
APPLICANT:
Silverado Homes, Inc.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
REQUESTED ENTITLEMENTS
1. General Plan Amendment from Urban Development Area to Low Density
Residential (approximately 0.5 acres); from Medium Density Residential to Low
Density Residential (approximately 17.0 acres) and Recreation (approximately
0.7 acres); from Public/Quasi-Public to Low Density Residential (approximately
4.1 acres); from Low Density Residential to Recreation (approximately .5 acres);
and from Natural Preserve to Recreation (approximately 1.9 acres) and Low
Density Residential (approximately 0.4 acres); the existing 12.9 acres of Low
Density Residential will remain as Low Density Residential.
2. A Community Plan Amendment from Residential Density 15 dwelling units/acre
to Residential Density 7 dwelling units/acre (approximately 7.2 acres),
Residential Density 10 dwelling units/acre (approximately 10.3 acres) and
Recreation (approximately 0.7 acres); from Recreation to Residential Density 7
dwelling units/acre (approximately 2.4 acres) and Residential Density 10
dwelling units/acre (approximately 1.7 acres); from Residential Density 5 dwelling
units acre to Residential Density 7 dwelling units/acre (approximately 9.2 acres),
Residential Density 10 dwelling units/acre (approximately 3.7 acres) and
Recreation (approximately 0.5 acres); and from Agricultural Residential 5 acre
Initial Study
IS-1
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
minimum to Recreation (approximately 1.9 acres) and Residential Density 7
dwelling units/acre (approximately 0.4 acres)
3. A Rezone from RD-15 Residential Density 15 dwelling units/acre to RD-7
Residential Density 7 dwelling units/acre (approximately 7.2 acres), RD-10
Residential Density 10 dwelling units/acre (approximately 10.3 acres) and O
Recreation (approximately 0.7 acres); from O Recreation to RD-7 Residential
Density 7 dwelling units/acre (approximately 2.8 acres) and RD-10 Residential
Density 10 dwelling units/acre (approximately 1.7 acres); and from RD-5
Residential Density 5 dwelling units/acre to RD-7 Residential Density 7 dwelling
units/acre (approximately 9.2 acres), RD-10 Residential Density 10 dwelling
units/acre (approximately 3.7 acres), and O Recreation (approximately 0.5
acres); the existing 1.9 acres of O Recreation will remain as O Recreation.
4. A Tentative Subdivision Map to divide the approximately 38 acres into a total of
225 residential lots (113 RD-7 lots, 112 RD-10 lots), 1 neighborhood park/water
quality pond, and landscape corridors/medians
5. A Special Development Permit to deviate from setback and lot size
requirements, to conform to the residential design guidelines
6. An Exception from Improvement Standards Grading Ordinance 10-4 A to allow
cut and fill in excess of two feet
7. A Design Review to comply with the Sacramento County Countywide Design
Guidelines
8. A Rescission of a prior Zoning Ordinance SZC-2008-0013
SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment, Antelope Community Plan
Amendment, and Zoning Category Changes to allow the proposed division of
approximately 38 acres. The proposed division is a request for a Tentative Subdivision
Map to divide the approximately 38 acre parcel into 113 RD-7 lots, 112 RD-10 lots, one
three-acre neighborhood park/water quality pond, and landscape corridors/medians
spanning the length of the main road “Street A,” adjacent to Scotland Drive, and
encompassing “Lot G” along the southwesterly border.
The project will result in an overall density of 5.92 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
residential lots range in size from approximately 3,200 square feet to approximately
5,408 square feet in area. The proposed single-family detached homes are proposed to
have reduced front, rear, and side yard setbacks from County standards. For this
reason, a request for a Special Development Permit is included in the application.
In addition to the deviations from setbacks a variety of floor plans is proposed for both
the single-story and two-story homes. This variety includes homes ranging from
approximately 1,250 square feet to over 2,000 square feet in size.
Initial Study
IS-2
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
FENCES/WALLS
There are three main fence types proposed to be constructed by the applicant as part of
the project. Along Elverta Road at the entry to the project, and then commencing down
each side of the entry until the first cross street, will be a six foot high masonry wall with
field edge stone veneer pilasters, topped by a pre cast plaster cap. An eight foot high
masonry wall is proposed along the boundary of the private property (not a part of the
project) located in the northeasterly corner. A six foot high masonry wall located on a
two foot high berm is proposed along the Scotland Drive frontage.
Traveling south along the main entry street, the six foot high masonry wall will transition
to a six foot high wooden fence. The wooden fence will have pilasters constructed of the
same materials and in the same type and style as the masonry wall.
The third type of fencing will be open type fencing constructed of 16 gauge tubular steel.
This fence is proposed along the rear properties of the homes backing up to the
neighborhood parkand is intended to contribute to the overall safety of the park by
providing additional “eyes” and “ears” on the park.
Additional fencing will include side and rear yard fencing for the parcels throughout the
project. There will also be a lower type fencing placed along the perimeters of the front
courtyards proposed for some of the RD-10 homes.
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK/WATER QUALITY POND
There is a three acre neighborhood park proposed to be located in the southeasterly
corner of the project site. Park amenities will be those characteristic of a neighborhood
park with some playground equipment, benches, walking trail, and small field area. The
specific amenities will be finalized with the North Highlands Recreation and Park
District.
A water quality pond is proposed to be located in the southeast corner of the park within
the 100 year flood plain. The pond will act as a detention basin for the increased
drainage resulting from increased permeable surfaces and the small loss of storage
capacity that will result from the filling of wetlands.
CIRCULATION
One new street connection to Elverta Road is proposed to serve the project. This street
connection will be the main access for the project beginning at the north boundary
(Elverta Road) and ending at the southerly boundary (park). A traffic signal is proposed
at the new street (Street A the main access for the project) and Elverta Road. The
southerly end of this main access street will be constructed with a cul-de-sac which will
allow a car to turn around at the park. The cul-de-sac is designed to allow for a future
Initial Study
IS-3
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
connection which will provide access to the properties south of the project site. A center
median is proposed approximately mid-way along this main access street to provide
traffic calming and a visual enhancement for the project.
Along the easterly boundary of the project site is an existing “stub-out” from Scotland
Drive. The project includes construction of a new street connecting to this “stub-out” and
providing direct access to the existing Scotland Drive. An additional three access points
are proposed which provide for future access to the west.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 38 acre project site is located at 2850 Elverta Road, on the south side of Elverta
Road; approximately 1,100 feet west of North Watt Avenue, in the Antelope Community
(refer to Plates IS-1 through IS-4). Elverta Road comprises the northerly boundary of
the project site. Northerly, across Elverta Road from the project site the properties are
zoned AR-5 and RD-10. Property to the northwest across Elverta Road is zoned AG-80
and is built out as the Antelope Greens Golf Course. There is a “notch” out of the project
site on the northeast corner. This “notch” piece of property is zoned AR-5 and is
developed with a single family home.
Scotland Drive is on the northeast boundary of the property. Property across Scotland
Drive, to the east, is developed with a shopping center including a big-box retailer and
smaller single story retail stores. To the southeast is property zoned M-2, which is
partially built out with a mini-storage facility. The AR-5 properties to the west of the
project site are developed with single family homes. To the south of the project site,
bordering the proposed park in the southeast corner is a creek and wetlands. In the
southwest corner is undeveloped property zoned AR-5. The site is approximately 0.75
miles south of the Placer County line, 3.5 miles north of the City of Sacramento, and 4
miles west of the City of Citrus Heights.
The project site is vacant and its terrain is characteristic of naturally rolling hillocks.
Topographic elevations range from approximately 70 feet in the south to 80 feet in the
north. Little, if any, agricultural-related earth moving has occurred on site. Site runoff
flows from the north to the south and southwest emptying into tributaries of Dry Creek.
A segment of the east-west trending tributary skirts the southeast corner of the project
site, as does the tributary’s associated 100-year floodplain. The delineation of wetland
features totals approximately 0.056- 0.059 acre of potentially jurisdictional wetlands. In
the north central portion of the site, grassland is the predominant vegetation regime with
a concentration of both native and non-native trees.
Initial Study
IS-4
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS
BACKGROUND
On April 23, 2008, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors approved a single
family residential project on the 38-acre project site. That project included a General
Plan Amendment, Rezone, Community Plan Amendment, Tentative Subdivision Map,
Special Development Permit, and Affordable Housing Plan. The 2008 Elverta Park
project was approved for the construction of 241 single family homes with a four acre
park and a 2.4 acre water detention site. See Plate IS-5 for map of the previously
approved site plan. A product mix of alley-loaded single family homes combined with
single family homes located on parcels laid out in a grid-like design was approved. The
parcels ranged in size from 2,044 square feet to approximately 7,300 square feet, with
the larger parcels located along on the east and west boundaries of the site.
An Environmental Impact Report (Final Environmental Impact Report for Elverta Park
General Plan Amendment, Community Plan Amendment, Rezone, Tentative
Subdivision Map, Special Development Permit, and Affordable Housing Plan (Control
Number: 05-GPB-CZB-SDP-SPB-AHS-0534; State Clearinghouse Number:
2006012097)(FEIR) was certified for the 2008 project at the time of its approval. The
FEIR identified project-related impacts associated with traffic and circulation, traffic
noise, air quality (PM10) and biological resources as potentially significant impacts,
which could be reduced to less than significant through inclusion of the recommended
mitigation measures. Impacts related to airport compatibility were identified as
significant and unavoidable because the project’s proposed land use was incompatible
with the adopted McClellan Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) noise and safety
zones; however, it was acknowledged that the adopted CLUP reflects McClellan’s
historic operation as a military base facility and that the current civilian reuse of the
airfield results in far less noise and safety impacts on surrounding areas as compared
with the historic military use of the facility.
The 2008 Elverta Park project was never built, and in 2014 the County received the
current application that proposes to reduce densities (from an overall density of 6.34
dwelling units per acre to 5.92 dwelling units per acre), eliminating the alley-loaded
product, and relocating the park to the southeasterly corner of the project site. The
project applicant also submitted several updated technical studies, including a Wetlands
Delineation Report, Cultural Resources Survey, Vehicle Miles Traveled Forecasts,
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Phase II Environmental Site Assessment,
Noise Analysis, and Arborist Report.
Staff of the Planning and Environmental Review Division (PER) reviewed the current
proposal and updated technical studies to determine whether the 2008 EIR is applicable
to the current proposal. The review found that the current project is substantially the
Initial Study
IS-5
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
same as the project that was previously approved. Further, the project is not expected
to result in any new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects. In fact, most impacts would be the same or less
severe than reported in the 2008 EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15162 and 15164, a Subsequent EIR is not required, and an Addendum to the
EIR has instead been prepared to address the need for minor changes and/or additions.
This Addendum should be considered with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on
the project.
The following sections evaluate the impact of the currently proposed project as
compared to the impacts of the project analyzed in the 2008 EIR; the focus is on the
difference in impact between the previously approved project and the currently
proposed project. In addition, minor technical updates to the 2008 EIR have been
incorporated as needed. For example, thresholds for impacts associated with
greenhouse gas emissions did not exist when the 2008 EIR was certified, but have
since been adopted. Therefore, such an analysis has been incorporated. Revised
information from updated technical reports prepared by the project applicant has also
been incorporated, as appropriate.
Additionally, the text of adopted mitigation measures has been modified to reflect minor
changes in County policies, agency name changes, and new air quality requirements.
The same numbering system used for the mitigation measures in the 2008 EIR is used
in this Addendum, but it has been noted where revisions were needed. Additional
mitigation measures needed to reflect new regulations are also specified.
Initial Study
IS-6
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Plate IS-1 : Aerial Photo of Project Site
Initial Study
IS-7
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Plate IS-2: Existing General Plan Land Use Designations
Initial Study
IS-8
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Plate IS-3: Existing Antelope Community Plan Land Use Designations
Initial Study
IS-9
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Plate IS-4: Existing Zoning and Location of Project Site
Initial Study
IS-10
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Plate IS-5: Previously Approved Tentative Subdivision Map 05-0534
Initial Study
IS-11
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
LAND USE
The proposed project consists of a General Plan Amendment, Community Plan
Amendment, and Zoning Code changes which would reduce the previously approved
densities. Overall, the revised project would result in approximately 19.2 acres of RD-7,
15.8 acres of RD-10, and 3 acres of O Recreation.
Also accompanying the density reduction requests are the following requests: a
Tentative Subdivision Map (See Plate IS-6 to divide the approximately 38 acres into a
total of 225 residential lots (113 RD-7 lots, 112 RD-10 lots), 1 neighborhood park/water
quality pond, and landscape corridors/medians; a Special Development Permit to
deviate from setback and lot size requirements, to conform to the residential design
guidelines;; an Exception from the Improvement Standards Grading Ordinance 10-4 to
allow cut and fill in excess of two feet; a Design Review to comply with the Sacramento
County Countywide Design Guidelines; and a Rescission of the prior Zoning Ordinance
SZC-2008-0013 that was approved for the previous 141 lot project.
The 2008 EIR Land Use section addressed consistency with County policies and the
McClellan Comprehensive Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP), which are addressed
below. The 2008 EIR also addressed the project’s consistency with the County’s
affordable housing requirements and determined that the prior project would meet the
requirements, making it a less-than-significant impact. However, since then, the County
has adopted a new Affordable Housing Ordinance, which no longer requires developers
to provide affordable housing onsite. Therefore, although addressed in the 2008, an
analysis of affordable housing is no longer relevant to this project.
The Land Use section of the 2008 Final EIR concluded that the prior project was
generally compatible with the General Plan goals and policies because the project site
is located adjacent to existing development, so it has access to public infrastructure and
is considered to be within an area of expanding urban uses. The EIR disclosed that the
project met the requirements of LU-4, requiring that land be developed at a minimum of
75 percent of the zoned maximum in the areas zoned RD-5, but that areas zoned
RD-15 fell short of the 75 percent requirement with an average density of 10.35 units
per acre. However, the EIR determined that the project generally met the intent of LU-4
by proposing a development of higher density neighborhood. In addition, the project
was consistent with LU-13 because it included a gridded street pattern and pedestrian
paseos that promote efficient pedestrian travel. Based on these factors, the 2008 EIR
determined that the project was generally consistent with the General Plan, zoning, and
the County’s development regulations, so the impact was determined to be less than
significant.
Initial Study
IS-12
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Plate IS-6: Tentative Subdivision Map
Initial Study
IS-13
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
The Land Use section of the 2008 Final EIR identified the land use incompatibility of the
project with the McClellan CLUP as a significant and unavoidable impact. There has
been little development in the area surrounding the project site over the past six years,
and an updated CLUP has yet to be adopted, despite the conversion of McClellan, a
former Air Force base, to civilian use since the adoption of the CLUP.
IMPACT: LAND USE
The land use impacts identified in the 2008 Final EIR for the previous project have not
changed dramatically since the 2008 EIR was certified. The proposed project still
provides a gridded street pattern and is located adjacent to existing development with
access to public infrastructure. With regard to consistency with LU-4 (now LU-5, per the
revised General Plan), with the proposed change in density from RD-5 and RD-15 to
RD-7 and RD-10, the revised project’s net density would now be approximately 5.9 units
per acre in the RD-7 area and 7.1 units per acre in the RD-10 area. The density of the
RD-10 area would be slightly below the 75 percent average density requirement, but,
consistent with the analysis found in the 2008 EIR, the combination of the RD-10
product and the RD-7 product within the same project together generally meet the intent
of the policy by building a neighborhood of higher density housing. The impact is similar
to that of the 2008 EIR, so it is considered to remain less than significant for the
purposes of this analysis.
The proposed project would not change the conclusion of the 2008 EIR in that
residential development at densities greater than 5 units per acre would occur within the
65-75 CNEL contours and the approach/departure safety zone. The CLUP is still
outdated and has not been revised to reflect the changes in operations that have
occurred at McClellan. At their April 23, 2008 regular session the Board of Supervisors
(Board) approved the CLUP override for the previous project of 241 single family lots.
As part of the review of this 225 single family lot proposal the Sacramento Area Council
of Governments (SACOG) was contacted regarding the previous override determination
and its applicability to the new project. SACOG confirmed that based on an
understanding that the Board approved an override for a previous project that was more
intense with higher densities than the project now being proposed and that the
McClellan Field CLUP has not been updated since that time, the conclusion is that the
Board’s previous override still remains in effect for this proposed project.
The impact has not changed since the 2008 EIR; therefore, this impact remains
significant and unavoidable.
PUBLIC SERVICES
As noted in the 2008 Final EIR, the project site is located in an urbanizing area of
unincorporated Sacramento County where urban public facilities and services exist for
the surrounding residential and commercial land uses. The EIR determined that impacts
on water supply would be less than significant because Cal-Am, the water provider
would have sufficient water supply capacity to fulfill the project’s anticipated demand of
Initial Study
IS-14
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
349,920 gallons per day. Similarly, impacts on sewer service would be less than
significant because the project site could adequately connect to the existing sewer
service and infrastructure in the area. In addition, the project site would be required to
be annexed into County Sanitation District 1 (CSD-1, now Sacramento Area Sewer
District [SASD]) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD).
Impacts on fire protection and law enforcement services were similarly determined to be
less than significant, and the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District and Sacramento
County Sheriff’s Department provided conditions to assist in reducing risks. Center
Unified School District determined that the proposed project would generate
approximately 192 new students who would require school services, which would be
provided at existing District facilities. Impacts on park and recreation facilities were also
determined to be less than significant because the prior project provided adequate park
land within the project site.
The 2008 EIR did not identify any issues in providing the project site with energy
services, public transit, library services, or solid waste services.
IMPACT: PUBLIC SERVICES
The proposed project would result in a decrease in the number of dwelling units that
would be developed within the project site from 241, as currently approved, to 225 as
proposed. In general, demand for public services tends to be based on population and
the number of housing units, so a reduction in the number of units would generally
result in a reduction of demand since a smaller population would generally result in a
smaller demand for services and utilities. Therefore, because the proposed project
includes a reduction of units and therefore population generation would be reduced,
demand for services and utilities would decrease below what was anticipated for the
prior project.
In the case of parks and recreation services, the amount of park land proposed within
the project site was also reduced to 3 acres, so it is necessary to determine whether the
reduce park size can still accommodate the reduced park demand. The prior EIR
determined that based on Section 20.30.045 of the Sacramento County Code, which
provided a formula for the calculation of parkland acreage, that 2 acres of parkland
would be need to accommodate the development, and the project provided 4 acres, so
the impact was less than significant. The County Code Section and formula for
determining adequate park land dedication has changed since the 2008 EIR was
certified. But based on the revised formula, now found in Section 22.40.035 of the
Sacramento County Code, the number of single family homes proposed (225) multiplied
by 0.88 (the applicable factor for single family homes), the proposed project would
require 1.98 acres of park land, which is fulfilled by 3 acres proposed within the project
site.
Based on the reduced number of units and subsequent reduction in population that
would be generated within the project site, the impact associated within demand for
services and utilities would not increase over the impacts addressed in the 2008 EIR.
Therefore, the impact on public services is less than significant.
Initial Study
IS-15
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the previous project and analyzed in the 2008
Final EIR. The EIR found that the project would result in a potentially significant impact
during the PM peak hour at the intersection of 28th Street and Elverta Road, and that the
cumulative plus project impact at the same intersection would be significant. In both
cases, Mitigation Measures TC-1 and TC-2 would provide for improvements to the
intersection or fair share funding that would reduce the project’s impact to a less-thansignificant level. The project would also require the signalization of East Elverta Park
Drive, one of the two access points provided in the previous project. A traffic signal is
required by Mitigation Measure TC-3.
IMPACT: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
In reviewing this application the County Department of Transportation (DOT) prepared a
table identifying the trip generation estimates for the project that was approved in 2008
and for the proposed project (see Table IS-1 below). Based on screening thresholds,
DOT requires the preparation of a traffic study when project would generate less than
1,000 daily vehicle trips and 100 or more new a.m. or p.m. peak trips. However, based
on the estimates identified in Table IS-1, DOT did not require a new traffic study for the
revised project, noting that “the revised project dwelling units are less than the prior
approvals; therefore, a new traffic study is not necessary at this time” (Atwal, 2014).
DOT stated that this determination was contingent upon the project complying with
Mitigation Measures TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3 (Atwal 2014), which were developed for the
previous project and are contained in the prior EIR. It is also worth noting that at the
time the estimates were prepared the proposed project consisted of 229 lots. Following
the revision to place homes fronting on the park, the project changed to 225 lots;
however, because there was only a four lot reduction from the original application
submittal, it was concluded that the estimates were still applicable to the revised 225-lot
application.
As shown in the table below, while the number of units and density proposed by the
proposed project decreased from the previous project, the number of daily traffic trips
and PM peak trips increased because lower density housing tends to generate higher
traffic levels than housing zoned RD-15. However, the increase would be less than
1,000 daily trips and less than 100 PM peak trips, so, as documented by DOT, the
existing traffic analysis adequately addresses the impacts of the proposed project.
Because the 2008 EIR is based on the prior traffic study and no new impacts have been
identified, the analysis in 2008 EIR is adequate to address the impacts that would result
from the proposed project as well. In addition, the three traffic mitigation measures from
the 2008 EIR, TC-1 through TC-3 are being carried forward and implemented for the
proposed project. Mitigation Measures TC-1 and TC-2 would result in the improvement
of the intersection of 28th Street and Elverta Road, and Mitigation Measure TC-3 would
add a traffic signal to the intersection of Elverta Road and “Street A” (formerly East
Elverta Park Drive), which provides the only access from Elverta Road into the project
site. These mitigation measures adequately address the impacts of the proposed
Initial Study
IS-16
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
project and reduce them to a less-than-significant level. No new impacts are anticipated
to result from development of the proposed project.
Because it has been determined that the previous traffic study and mitigation measures
are appropriate for the proposed project, and because no new or substantially increased
impacts have been identified for the proposed project, this impact remainsless than
significant with mitigation.
Table IS-1: Trip Generation Estimate
Table 1: Trip Generation Estimate
Condition
Zoning or Use (Area) Source
Daily Trip
Rate
Daily
Trips
PM Peak
PM Peak
Hour Trip Rate
Trips
Existing
Use [1]
Vacant
( 38.0 Ac)
Existing
Entitlement [2]
241 DU
( 38.0 Ac)
ITE
(210)
9.52
VTE/DU
2,294
1.00
VTE/DU
241
261 DU
(RD-15, 17.4 Ac)
ITE
(220)
6.65
VTE/DU
1,736
0.62
VTE/DU
162
67 DU
(RD-5, 13.4 Ac)
ITE
(210)
9.52
VTE/DU
638
1.00
VTE/DU
67
Existing
Zoning
0
2,374
Existing Zoning Total [3]
Proposed
Project [4]
Proposed
Zoning
0
229
229 DU
( 38 Ac)
ITE
(210)
9.52
VTE/DU
2,180
1.00
VTE/DU
229
277 DU
(RD-10, 14.8 Ac)
ITE
(230)
5.81
VTE/DU
1,609
0.52
VTE/DU
144
129 DU
(RD-7, 18.5 Ac)
ITE
(210)
9.52
VTE/DU
1,228
1.00
VTE/DU
129
Proposed Zoning Total [5]
2,837
273
Increase in trips for the proposed project as compared to the
existing use [6]=[4]-[1]
2,180
229
Increase in trips for the proposed project as compared to the
existing entitlement [7]=[4]-[2]
0
0
Increase in trips for the proposed project as compared to the
existing zoning [8]=[4]-[3]
0
0
Increase in trips for the proposed zoning as compared to the
existing zoning [9]=[5]-[3]
463
44
Notes:
VTE = Vehicle trip ends
Ac = Acres
DU = Dwelling Units
ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 9th Edition (Land Use No.)
Initial Study
IS-17
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
AIR QUALITY
The 2008 EIR determined that project construction would result in NOx emissions
exceeding the significance threshold of 85 pounds per day, making the impact
significant. Mitigation was provided that would reduce this impact to less than
significant. Project construction impacts associated with PM10 were determined to be
potentially significant, and although mitigation was included, the impact was determined
to be potentially significant after mitigation.
Operational impacts were determined to be less than significant as neither ROG nor
NOx emissions were estimated to exceed the significance threshold of 65 pounds per
day. Although this impact was less than significant, a mitigation measure prohibiting the
installation of wood burning fireplaces in new construction was required
.Since the certification of the 2008 Final EIR, there have been a number of new
standards and methods analysis adopted by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD). The SMAQMD “Guide to Air Quality Assessment in
Sacramento County” (December 2009, as amended, hereinafter called the SMAQMD
Guide) contains screening thresholds for significant impacts. Some PM10 emissions
during project construction can be reduced through compliance with institutional
requirements for dust abatement and erosion control, and additional mitigation may not
be required.
These institutional measures include the SMAQMD “District Rule 403-Fugitive Dust”
and measures in the Sacramento County Code relating to land grading and erosion
control [Title 16, Chapter 16.44, Section 16.44.090(K)]. Dispersion modeling conducted
for projects of various sizes has resulted in the conclusion that projects involving more
than 15 acres of active grading at any one time will result in significant impacts, even
with standard dust abatement measures. The text is emphasized to note that the
screening threshold does not speak to the total project area, but to the largest total area
that will be actively graded at any given time.
Although the project site is approximately 38 acres, the entire acreage will not be
actively graded at one time. Unless a site is quite small, a contractor typically hires
enough equipment to actively grade a portion of the site each day, rather than
contracting for enough equipment to grade the site all during the same day. In general,
it is assumes that approximately 25 percent of a project site is graded at one time,
which would be, in the case of the project site, approximately 9.5 acres per day. The
2008 EIR specifically states that the project applicant may find it more economically
feasible to grade 20 acres per day, which exceeded SMAQMD’s screening threshold
and resulted in the conclusion that there was a potentially significant impact for PM10
emissions requiring mitigation. The current applicant estimates that grading for pad
preparation and roadway grading would take approximately three weeks for the entire
site, so unlike the previous project, it is unlikely that more than 15 acres of the project
site would be graded at one time. The entire 38 acres will be graded at some level;
however the park area and water quality pond will not be graded as intensely as the
areas being graded for homes and streets.
Initial Study
IS-18
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
The SMAQMD Guide includes a list of Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices
that should be implemented on all projects, regardless of size. Dust abatement
practices are required pursuant to SMAQMD Rule 403 and California Code of
Regulations, Title 13, sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485; the SMAQMD Guide simply lays
out the basic practices needed to comply. Since these are already required by existing
rules and regulations, it is not necessary to include them as mitigation.
IMPACT: AIR QUALITY
Air quality modeling was done using CalEEMod to compare current project emissions to
those reported in the prior EIR. According the to the model, construction of the
proposed project would result in total NOx emissions of 10.16 tons over the three-year
construction period, with 5.326 tons of NOx emissions during the first year of
construction. This would average out to approximately 29 pounds of construction NOx
per day during the first year of construction, with emissions tapering down in
subsequent years. This is below the prior EIR’s estimate of 98.72 pounds per day of
unmitigated construction NOx and below the significance threshold of 85 pounds per
day. Therefore, the project’s construction NOx emissions are less than significant,
rather than potentially significant as identified in the prior EIR. Furthermore, , Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 from the prior EIR are not necessary for construction of
the proposed project.
As stated above, the project applicant has estimated that grading activities at the project
site would take three weeks, so unlike the previous project, which expected to have up
to 20 acres graded in a day triggering a potentially significant impact, the proposed
project would take longer to grade the project site, grading less than 15 acres per day.
Therefore, PM10 emissions resulting from project construction activities would be less
than the prior project and below SMAQMD’s screening threshold. Therefore, this impact
would be reduced from potentially significant (as identified in the prior EIR) to less than
significant. The mitigation required by the 2008 EIR, Mitigation Measure AQ-4, is no
longer necessary.
Operational impacts for the proposed project for both NOx and ROG were less than
significant in the prior EIR because they did not exceed the operational threshold of 65
pounds per day. The proposed project would result in operational NOx emissions of
4.05 tons per year, or approximately 22.2 pounds per day, while operational ROG
emissions would be 4.16 tons per year, or approximately 22.8 pounds per day. The
proposed project’s daily operational emissions of both NOx and ROG are below the prior
project’s modeled emissions of 27.23 and 36.94 pounds, respectively. Therefore, the
proposed project’s impact remains less than significant, and no mitigation is
warranted.
It should be noted that Mitigation Measure AQ-5 prohibiting the installation of woodburning fireplaces was recommended in the 2008 EIReven though the impact was less
than significant. However, wood-burning fireplaces are now no longer permitted in new
residential construction in Sacramento County under SMAQMD Rule 417, so this
mitigation measure is no longer warranted.
Initial Study
IS-19
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
ROSEVILLE RAIL YARD
The 2008 EIR included an analysis of potential risks associated with the project site’s
proximity to the Roseville Railyard, located approximately 3.5 miles to the east. The
analysis was included in the EIR at the request of SMAQMD during scoping for the
Notice of Preparation because a risk characterization study had been recently published
(prepared in 2004). Although not normally included in air quality analyses, the analysis
was included for disclosure purposes. The study assesses the human health risk of
diesel particulate matter (PM) emissions from rail yard operations.
Based on the information at the time, the 2008 EIR noted that the estimated contribution
of the Rail Yard emissions to the diesel PM and overall toxic air pollution related to
cancer risk at the project site is relatively low (2-7%). According to the EIR, the study
determined that diesel PM from the rail yard would contribute a 10-25 in one million
increase in the risk of cancer at the project site. However, it should be noted that the
2008 EIR did not include the background risk factor of 360 in one million risk of cancer
for all of Sacramento County in that calculation. The background risk factor is the risk
that all residents in Sacramento County are subject to due to existing air quality
conditions. The diesel PM from Rail Yard emissions would increase the risk of cancer at
the project site by 10 to 25 persons per million; therefore, the total risk would be
increased to 370 to 385 in one million (background risk of 360 in one million plus 10 to
25 in one million equals 370 to 385 in one million).
At the time of the 2008 EIR there were not any thresholds of significance for diesel PM
emissions, and there still are no standards. The 2008 EIR did not include a significance
conclusion and stated that the information was provided in the EIR for disclosure
purposes.
A letter from SMAQMD was received in response to the current project which stated
that the project site is in an area delineated in the Roseville Rail Yard Study as an area
with an increase health risk. The letter asked that this information be disclosed in the
environmental document, along with information noting that emission reduction efforts at
the Rail Yard have taken place since the 2008 EIR was certified. These emission
reduction efforts include purchasing and operating several lower emission Tier 2
locomotives, ultra-low emittion generator set locomotives (known as switchers), an
experimental Tier 3+ locomotive, and the California interstate line haul locomotive fleet
has become significantly cleaner than the rest of the country due to the spillover
benefits from the 1998 Locomotive NOX Fleet Average Agreement in the South Coast
Air Basin (R. DuBose, 2014). Follow up correspondence with SMAQMD made
clarifications on the calculations of the overall health risk at the project site (that is
actually between 370 and 385 in one million) and stated that according to the California
Air Resources Board (ARB), Rail Yard emissions have dropped an average of 70%
since 2000 (R. DuBose 2015). As a result, current cancer risk level at the site would
likely be lower than what was identified in the 2008 EIR.
Initial Study
IS-20
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change impacts were addressed in the Air
Quality section of the 2008 EIR. At the time, thresholds of significance for climate
change and greenhouse gas emissions impacts were not in place, and the methodology
by which a CEQA document should assess an individual project’s impact on a global
issue like climate change were not yet known, so the EIR concluded that it was
speculative to draw a conclusion regarding the project’s significance, and therefore, the
impact was considered to be potentially significant. The 2008 Final EIR provided
Mitigation Measures AQ-6 through AQ-18 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but due
to the inability to make a conclusive finding regarding the impact, the impact after
mitigation was considered to remain potentially significant.
The proposed project would result in the development of a lower density project than
the prior project and a slight increase in traffic, both of which could contribute to
greenhouse gas emissions. Since the 2008 EIR was certified, Sacramento County has
developed significance thresholds for assessing a project’s impact on climate change,
which are shown in Table IS-2 below. Because the proposed project only includes
residential and park uses, the threshold of 1.33 metric tons CO2e per capita for
Residential Energy and 2.67 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per capita for Transportation are
relevant to the proposed project. In 2014, Sacramento County’s average population per
household was 2.92 persons, so the proposed project’s estimated population for the
analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is 612 people.
Table IS-2: Greenhouse Gas Significance Thresholds (Annual MT CO2e)
Sector
2005
Baseline
2020
Target
Thresholds
Residential Energy
1,033,142
878,275
1.33 per capita
Commercial &
Industrial Energy
772,129
656,914
7.87 per Kft2
Transportation
2,066,970
1,757,236
2.67 per capita
Trucks
488,806
414,470
0.10 per 100 VMT
IMPACT: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
To assist the County in assessing the project’s effect on climate change, the applicant
provided a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Forecasts Report prepared by Fehr and Peers
August 28, 2014 (Attachment 1). This report included 2008 (base year), 2020, and 2035
VMT forecasts for the project. The report determined that VMT for the year 2008 would
be 7,337 miles daily (2,678,005 yearly); VMT for 2020 would be 6,986 miles daily
(2,549,890 yearly); and VMT in 2035 would be 6,549 miles daily (2,390,385 yearly). The
report concluded that the project’s VMT will decrease between 2008 and 2035, likely
Initial Study
IS-21
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
due to planned employment growth (i.e., retail and non-retail sectors) that will result in
shorter trip lengths for some trips like work and shopping trips, since those destinations
would be closer to the project site. Using the VMT forecasts provided, PER staff
modeled the proposed project’s greenhouse gas emissions using the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) and compared the outputs to the County’s
significance threshold for transportation emissions. Overall, the model estimated that
greenhouse gas emissions for transportation sources would be approximately 2,416 MT
CO2e. This equates to approximately 3.9 MT CO2e per person per year, which exceeds
the County’s threshold of 2.67 MT per person per year, 1.23 over the threshold. This is
likely due to the project site’s distance to major employment centers. However, as the
VMT Forecasts Report suggests, future development of employment, retail, and
commercial uses closer to the project site is expected to result in some decrease in
VMT over time. However, it would still be in excess of the threshold. This would be a
significant impact, which is consistent with the potentially significant finding from the
prior EIR.
CalEEMOD estimates CO2 emissions for a project within the following energy
categories: area emissions, household energy emissions (electricity and natural gas),
waste emissions and water emissions. According to CalEEMOD, the proposed project
would consume approximately 7.3 million kBTU of natural gas and approximately 1.7
kWh of electricity annually to provide household electricity and natural gas. It is also
estimated that it would consume approximately 14.9 million gallons of water for indoor
use and 12.9 million gallons for outdoor use before mitigation. The project is also
expected to produce approximately 220.5 tons of waste each year. Each of these
categories would result in emissions of CO2, totaling approximately 999 MT CO2e each
year prior to mitigation. Table IS-3 provides a breakdown of emissions by energy
category.
Table IS-3: Annual CO2 Emissions from Energy Usage
Energy Source
Metric Tons CO2e
Area
3.9
Energy
853.2
Waste
100.4
Water
41.4
Total Energy Emissions
998.5
Based on the estimated population of the project site at build out, annual energy
emissions for all energy sources would be approximately 1.6 MT CO2e per capita, which
exceeds the County’s threshold by approximately 0.3 MT for residential energy. Based
Initial Study
IS-22
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
on the modeling, the greenhouse gas emissions impact would remain significant,
consistent with the conclusion of the 2008 EIR.
Aggregating project emissions, the project will contribute an annual total of 3,414.5 MT
of CO2e (5.6 MT per capita), which equates to an exceedance of the aggregate
emissions threshold of 4.0 MT per capita (1.33 MT energy per capita threshold + 2.67
MT per capita transportation threshold) by 1.6 MT per capita. In order to be under
thresholds, the project must mitigate for 979.2 MT annually
In the 2008 EIR, Mitigation Measures AQ-6 through AQ 18 were required, but the
impact remained potentially significant after mitigation, in part due to the speculative
nature of greenhouse gas analyses at that time. The potential emission reductions that
the mitigation measures could achieve were not quantified in the 2008 EIR. However,
since that time, projects are better able to quantify their reductions. For this reason,
Mitigation Measure CC-1 is recommended for the currently proposed project, requiring
the preparation of a plan that demonstrates quantified greenhouse gas emissions
reductions. The plan may include measures similar to those found in Mitigation
Measures AQ-6 through AQ-18, but additional examples of possible measures are
provided as well. These could include providing access to bicycle trails, minimizing
barriers for bicyclists and pedestrians, and traffic calming measures.
Because it is unknown exactly which measures will be used to reduce the project’s
greenhouse gas emissions and what the quantified reductions in emissions would be
until the plan is prepared, it is unknown whether or not reductions to below the County’s
thresholds are achievable. Therefore, the impact would remain potentially significant
after mitigation, consistent with the 2008 EIR.
NOISE
The 2008 Final EIR evaluated three main sources of noise in the project vicinity that
included: Elverta Road traffic, Walmart operations, and McClellan Air Force Base. Other
noise sources that were evaluated included construction noise during construction of
the project, and noise from project related traffic.
The EIR concluded that exterior noise impacts associated with traffic noise from Elverta
Road would be significant, as the predicted exterior noise levels would be 71.5 dB Ldn,
in excess of the 65 dB Ldn standard. The EIR included mitigation that required the
erection of a 6-foot sound barrier wall. Interior noise impacts from traffic noise were
determined to be 49 dB for the second floor of the homes to be built along Elverta Road
using standard construction materials, which exceed the 45 dB Ldn standard. Therefore,
mitigation was included that required improved window assemblies for second floor
bedroom located along Elverta Road, as well as air conditioning to allow for residents to
keep windows closed to reduce noise levels. Mitigation was determined to reduce
impacts to less-than-significant levels for both exterior and interior noise levels from
traffic noise.
Initial Study
IS-23
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Noise impacts from commercial uses adjacent to the northeast corner of the project site
were also determined to be significant and require mitigation due to noise from delivery
truck movement, loading dock operations, and operational activities at an automotive
repair center. The EIR concluded that an 8-foot solid noise barrier was required to
reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Noise impacts associated with aircraft at McClellan Park, project traffic, and project
construction were all determined to be less than significant, and no mitigation was
required.
A noise analysis was prepared for the current project by Bollard Acoustical Consultants,
Inc., dated June 10, 2014 (Attachment 2). Comparisons of the conclusions from the EIR
and the new noise analysis are described in more detail below.
Impact: Elverta Road Noise
The revised project will place thirteen new residences next to Elverta Road, which is an
existing noise source. The 2014 Noise Study indicated that future traffic noise levels
are predicted to exceed the 65 dB Ldn exterior noise level standard up to 177 feet from
the centerline of Elverta Road, potentially impacting 13 lots (See Plate IS-7). The prior
EIR estimated the 65 dB noise contour to be 219 feet from the centerline of Elverta
Road. Similar to the prior EIR, the Noise Analysis determined that a 6-foot masonry wall
would be adequate to reduce outdoor noise levels to 65 dB Ldn or less at the proposed
backyard areas of the 13 homes within the 65 dB Ldn noise contour. Therefore, the
impact remains the same as previously disclosed in the EIR, and the mitigation to build
a 6-foot noise barrier wall still applies (See Plate IS-8). Therefore, the impact
associated with exterior noise levelsremains significant but mitigable to less than
significant and the prior mitigation measures are still applicable.
According to the 2014 Noise Study, under the worst-case scenario, exterior noise levels
at the second story of homes directly adjacent to Elverta Road would be 71 dB Ldn, so a
reduction of 26 dB would be necessary to reach the 45dB standard. Typical construction
materials would reduce interior noise levels by at least 25 dB with windows closed.
Therefore, like the conclusion of the prior EIR, upgraded windows would be needed on
all second floor bedroom windows adjacent to Elverta Road to ensure that interior noise
levels are less than 45 dB. The 2014 Noise Study also recommends that air
conditioning be provided to allow occupants to close doors and windows to reduce
noise levels. This is consistent with the conclusion of the prior EIR, so this impact is
considered to be less than significant, and the previous mitigation measures are still
applicable. No additional mitigation is needed.
Initial Study
IS-24
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Plate IS-7: Unmitigated Future Noise Contours
Initial Study
IS-25
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
PLATE IS-8: LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED NOISE BARRIER
Initial Study
IS-26
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
IMPACT: WALMART OPERATIONS NOISE
As stated above, the 2008 EIR provides a discussion of noise from the adjacent
commercial uses located to the east of the project site. The primary noise source is a
Walmart store that includes a loading dock and automotive repair center. The 2014
Noise Study provided updated information analyzing the impacts that the Walmart store
activities could have upon future residents of the project. As stated above, the prior EIR
found that impacts from the adjacent commercial operations would be significant and
required the installation of an 8-foot solid noise barrier along the portion of the eastern
boundary of the project site to reduce noise levels to a less-than-significant level. The
property located at the northeast corner of the project site already has an existing 8-foot
masonry wall along its eastern edge to shield that property from Walmart activities. The
wall ends at the edge of the project site.
However, the 2014 Noise Study found that noise levels from Walmart operations did not
appear to be significant relative to background noise from Elverta Road and that noise
mitigation for the Walmart store operations are not warranted. Nonetheless, the Noise
Study recommends that disclosure statements be provided to all prospective residents
of this development informing them of the potential for noise generation at the Walmart
store, including possible nighttime truck deliveries.
Although the 2014 Noise Study determined that mitigation would not be necessary, the
2008 Final EIR did include mitigation for the installation of an 8-foot masonry wall.
Although mitigation is no longer necessary to reduce noise impacts, the applicant is
proposing to construct a two foot high berm with a six foot high masonry wall behind a
ten foot wide landscape corridor and a five foot wide sidewalk along a portion of the
project site’s eastern edge (behind Lots 170 through 180). This wall would provide some
noise buffering from Walmart operations, even though not required.
Because the 2008 Final EIR did require mitigation that would buffer noise generated
from Walmart operations, and although the 2014 Noise Study only recommended
disclosure statements, it is concluded that the disclosure statements and the
construction of a two foot berm with a six foot wall, should be required. With mitigation
measures this impact is less than significant.
IMPACT: MCCLELLAN AIR FORCE BASE NOISE IMPACT
Both the 2008 Final EIR and the 2014 Noise Study concluded that the project site is
located outside the 2022 CNEL 60 dB noise level contour. Therefore, this impact is less
than significant.
IMPACT: CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACT
The 2008 EIR determined that impacts associated with construction noise would be less
than significant because construction would be consistent with the requirements of the
County’s Noise Ordinance. Construction of the current project would also be consistent
with the requirements of the Noise Ordinance, so the previous conclusion remains
unchanged. This impact is less than significant.
Initial Study
IS-27
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
IMPACT: PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT
The 2008 EIR concluded that increases in noise associated with project-related traffic
would be negligible and therefore less than significant. As this project is proposing a
reduction in density resulting in fewer homes, with an associated reduction in vehicle
trips, the 2008 EIR conclusion that this impact is less than significant is still relevant
for this project.
DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY
In 2007 the Sacramento County Department of Water Resources (DWR) reviewed the
Morton & Pitalo Engineers drainage analysis that was prepared in 2006 for the project
site, and the 2008 EIR included an assessment of the project’s potential impacts on
existing drainage features and conditions, both on-site and off-site. According to the
EIR, the project site is within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Flood Zone X, with the majority of the project site located outside the 500-year
floodplain. There is a portion of the project site, the southeast corner, which is located
within the Sierra Creek 100-year floodplain. The 2008 EIR determined that drainage and
flooding impacts would be less than significant with compliance with DWR
requirements.
IMPACT: DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY
The entire 38 acres is proposed to be graded to accommodate development of 225
residential lots, a 2.5 acre neighborhood park, and a 0.5 acre water quality pond.
Drainage runoff will be directed via a series of street curbs and storm drains into the Lot
H water quality pond located in the southeast corner of the project site, before emptying
into Sierra Creek.
On June 24, 2015 Watermark Engineering, Inc. completed a drainage study for the
project applicant as required by DWR. DWR reviewed the 2015 data and the current
project’s drainage impacts. Based on their review, DWR is recommending that the
project conditions of approval include: provision of onsite drainage easements, payment
of fees, provision of floodplain easements, provision of offsite drainage improvements
and easements, no net loss of storage for any fill placed within the 100-year floodplain,
and fencing in the floodplain shall be open style. Compliance with the DWR
recommended conditions will ensure less than significant drainage and flooding
impacts.
GRADING AND EROSION
The prior EIR determined that impacts associated with project-related erosion and
pollution were less than significant with the implementation of appropriate erosion and
sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the Sacramento
County Code, Land Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. The EIR also mentioned
that developers are required to use the Stormwater Quality Design Manual (2007) when
selecting and designing post-construction facilities for runoff treatment.
Initial Study
IS-28
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
The revised project does not introduce new impacts or increase the severity of the
impacts disclosed in the prior EIR. The same requirements for erosions and sediment
control and treatment of runoff from the project site are still applicable to the project as
currently proposed. Therefore, this impact remains less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
WETLANDS
The 2008 EIR included a study by Gibson and Skordal, LLC which identified wetlands
on the project site and was conducted on June 21, 2005. The survey identified seasonal
wetlands on the site totaling 0.22 acres, but this acreage was not verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) prior to certification of the document. The 2008 EIR
determined that impacts to wetlands from development of the prior project was
potentially significant, but Mitigation Measure BR-1 reduced this impact to a less-than
significant level. However, it should be noted that that mitigation measure calls for
payment of fees for loss of wetlands into the County Wetlands Restoration Trust Fund,
which no longer exists, so some other method of mitigation will be needed.
IMPACT: WETLANDS
On February 27, 2009 an updated wetlands study (Attachment 3) was prepared by
Bruce D. Barnett, PhD. Environmental Consulting & Regulatory Compliance Services.
The surveys for this report were conducted on October 17, 2007 by Dr. Barnett. These
surveys concluded that approximately 0.056 acres of potentially jurisdictional wetlands
are present on the project site. Comparing the wetland maps from each report, the
reduction in wetlands acreage from the 0.22 acres identified in the 2008 FEIR (Plate IS9) and the 0.056 acres identified in the 2009 wetlands delineation report (Plate IS-10)
appears to be due to a smaller swale area identified in the later wetland survey. In June
2009, the Corps Sacramento District verified the presence of 0.059 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands within the project site (See Attachment 4 for June 9, 2009 letter).
This varies from the wetland acreage reported in the 2008 EIR, but because that
acreage was never verified, the Corps-verified acreage is considered to be the actual
acreage requiring mitigation. Furthermore, although the acreage in the Corps letter
varies from the acreage reporting the 2009 wetland delineation report by 0.003 acres,
the verified acreage of 0.059 acres is considered to be the official acreage to be used in
this analysis and for mitigation purposes.
The impact is slightly less severe than reported in the 2008 EIR, and revised mitigation
will be needed to comply with County policy for no net loss of wetlands. The impact
conclusion is not changed by revisions to the project, and therefore, this impact is
considered to be potentially significant but mitigable to less than significant.
Initial Study
IS-29
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Plate IS-9: 2008 FEIR Plate BR-1 Wetlands Map
Initial Study
IS-30
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Plate IS-10: Wetlands Delineation Report February 27, 2009
Initial Study
IS-31
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES
There were no special status plant species identified in the 2008 EIR as being located
on the project site. However, two special status plant species occurrences of dwarf
downingia (Downingia pusilla) and legenere (Legenere limosa) were identified as being
located within one mile of the project site. No impact associated with special-status
plant species was identified in the 2008 EIR.
SPECIAL STATUS ANIMAL SPECIES
The 2008 EIR stated that the project site contains grassland and wetland habitat that
can support a range of wildlife species, including vernal pool tadpole shrimp and vernal
pool fairy shrimp (both listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and
Swainson’s hawk (listed under the California Endangered Species Act. Although the site
has the potential to provide habitat for burrowing owl and tri-colored blackbird, the 2008
EIR stated that the habitat value for those species would be marginal, so it was unlikely
for those species to occur onsite. Those species were not addressed any further in the
EIR.
The 2008 EIR determined that the removal of the wetlands located onsite would
constitute a potentially significant impact on the Federally-threatened shrimp species for
which the wetlands may serve as habitat. The impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level by implementation of Mitigation Measure BR-2.
In addition, the project site contains 38 acres of potential foraging habitat for Swainson’s
hawk, so the impact on that species was determined to be significant. Implementation
of Mitigation Measure BR-3 was used to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level. However, it should be noted that the County has approved revisions to the
Swainson’s hawk Impact Mitigation Program since the 2008 Final EIR was certified.
The change resulted in a fee reduction for this project. The criteria to determine
mitigation did not change from that identified in the 2008 Final EIR; however, the timing
of fee payment did change. Payment of the mitigation fee is now required prior to any
site disturbance, such as clearing or grubbing, the issuance of any permits for grading,
building, or other site improvements, or the recordation of a final map, whichever occurs
first. Previously payment was required prior to approval of the improvement plans,
building permits, or recordation of the final map, whichever occurs first. This mitigation
measure will be revised to reflect the fee and timing of payment changes, although the
revisions do not change the final significance conclusion.
IMPACT: SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES
The revised project would not result in any additional impacts on special-status species
not already disclosed in the 2008 EIR. Therefore, this impact remains significant, but
mitigable to less than significant, and the same mitigation measures are still
applicable.
Initial Study
IS-32
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Trees
The 2008 EIR identified a total of 60 trees located on the project site, of which 36 were
native species. Of these, 24 warranted protection under Sacramento County tree
protection regulations, including 19 oaks and five black walnut trees totaling 379 inches
in diameter at breast height (dbh). Because all on-site trees were slated for removal to
accommodate development of the prior project, the impact was determined to be
significant. Mitigation was provided requiring in-kind replacement tree plantings on an
inch-per-inch basis for the native species, preservation of existing onsite trees, and/or
payment of compensation fees. The 2008 EIR concluded that the impact would be less
than significant after mitigation.
Another 10 non-native trees were larger than 19 dbh, but none met the conditions that
would warrant protection under the Tree Ordinance as “landmark” trees. These trees
were also not subject to any protection under General Plan policies in effect at the time
of the 2008 EIR. However, in 2011 the County adopted an updated General Plan (2030
General Plan) which includes new policies for the management of urban forests,
including policy CO-145, which states:
CO-145: Removal of non-native tree canopy for development shall be mitigated by
creation of new tree canopy equivalent to the acreage of non-native tree
canopy removed. New tree canopy acreage shall be calculated using the 15year shade cover values for tree species.
An updated tree study for the current project was prepared by “Up a Tree Arborist
Services” (2014 Tree Study) in May 2014 (Attachment 5).
The 2014 Tree Study identified 72 trees onsite, including 15 that were not included in
the 2005 arborist report because they were too small to be inventoried in 2005 or in
some cases multiple trees were counted as one tree in the previous report.
There were also four trees identified in the 2008 EIR which could not be found in the
survey conducted for the 2014 Tree Study. Additional research conducted by the
applicant concluded that the four missing trees were one valley oak, one California
black walnut, one pecan, and one English walnut. The valley oak tree was included in
the arborist report prepared for the previous project, and at that time the arborist
determined that the tree was unhealthy and should be removed; there was no mitigation
required. The California black walnut was also included in the previous arborist report
and at that time it was deemed to be in “fair to poor” condition approximately 10 dbh in
size, and mitigation was proposed for its removal. The English walnut and pecan trees
were also included in the previous arborist report; however mitigation was not required
for these two non-native trees.
The locations of the onsite trees are illustrated on Plate IS-11; along with the
identification of which trees the applicant proposes to save and which trees are
proposed for removal. Of the 72 trees located onsite, there are 47 native trees are
protected under the County Tree Ordinance or General Plan Conservation Element
policies; these trees include one interior live oak, 16 blue oaks, 21 valley oaks, and nine
Initial Study
IS-33
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
California black walnut trees. One valley oak, one blue oak, and one California black
walnut were also identified in the report, but they are too small to warrant protection
under County policies. The remaining trees located onsite are non-native eucalyptus
and almond trees.
IMPACT: TREES
TREES TO BE REMOVED
The proposed project identifies fewer trees to be removed than the previous project
evaluated in the 2008 EIR. Fewer trees are proposed for removal due to changes to the
overall land plan which sets aside approximately three acres for a park and water
quality control pond. There are 13 trees located in the proposed park/pond area, and
12 of the trees are proposed to be saved. One tree (#201) is a 12 inch dbh valley oak
which is located along the easterly property line, at the easterly edge of the proposed
pond. The tree was identified in the Arborist Report as declining, possibly caused by
the wire and cloth embedded at the base of the tree. The Arborist Report
recommended that the tree be removed or possibly saved, to allow it to grow over the
embedded obstructions. With the decline of the tree and the location of the pond the
applicant is proposing removal of the tree. Although the majority of the trees located on
the rest of the project site are still proposed for removal, the impact to trees resulting
from development of this project is consistent with the impact identified for the previous
project. Following is a summary of the native and non-native trees proposed for
removal. Mitigation is also provided for the dbh lost from the removal of the native trees
and the tree canopy lost from the removal of the non-native trees.
NATIVE TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL
The applicant is proposing to remove a total of 59 trees. Of these, 35 are native trees
totaling 578 dbh inches. Two of the 34 native trees are dead and will not require
mitigation; however, compensatory mitigation is recommended for the remaining 544
inches of native tree removal. Of the 544 inches, 416 inches are oak trees and 128
inches are California black walnut trees. Additionally, mitigation is recommended for the
loss of the 10-inch California black walnut, discussed above, that is no longer on the
project site and whose loss has not been compensated despite the adopted mitigation
from the 2008 EIR.The resulting total dbh inches to be mitigated are 554. Table IS-4
identifies the native onsite trees to be removed, their respective dbh inches, and the
required compensatory mitigation in dbh inches. The tree identification numbers
identified in Table IS-4 are different than the identification numbers included in the 2008
Final EIR. The 2014 Arborist Report prepared by Up a Tree Aborist Services includes a
table which identifies the old and new tree numbers. According to the 2014 Arborist
Report there are some differences in the data regarding the size of trees due to a
previous determination that what was considered one tree was actually two separate
trees growing very close to one another and another difference was a tree that grew
around a tag to the point where the tag was no longer legible.
Initial Study
IS-34
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Plate IS-11: Tree Location Exhibit
Trees to be Removed and Saved
Initial Study
IS-35
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Table IS-4
Native Onsite Trees to be Removed
Tree #
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
dbh
inches
Proposed
Impact
Mitigation
Requirement
dbh inches
2971
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
21
Remove
21
161
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
21
Remove
21
2976
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
9
Remove
9
2977
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
14
Remove
14
2980
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
11
Remove
11
2975
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
19
Remove
19
2957
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
15
Remove
15
2958
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
22
Remove
22
195
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
31
Remove
31
199
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
22
Remove
22
2969
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
9
Remove
9
2968
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
28
Remove
28
2973
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
17
Remove
17
2979
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
10
Remove
10
2982
Blue Oak
Quercus douglasii
7
Remove
7
163
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
19
Remove
19
164
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
16
Remove
16
165
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
16
Remove
16
171
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
15
Remove
15
175
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
8
Remove
8
2955
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
31
Remove
31
189
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
14
Remove
14
2967
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
8
Remove
8
Initial Study
IS-36
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Tree #
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
dbh
inches
Proposed
Impact
Mitigation
Requirement
dbh inches
2974
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
12
Remove
12
201
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
12
Remove
12
166
Interior Live
Oak
Quercus wizlizenii
9
Remove
9
151
California
Black Walnut
Juglans hindsii
12
Remove
12
153
California
Black Walnut
Juglans hindsii
25
Remove: tree
decayed
154
California
Black Walnut
Juglans hindsii
23
Remove
23
155
California
Black Walnut
Juglans hindsii
6
Remove
6
156
California
Black Walnut
Juglans hindsii
27
Remove
27
169
California
Black Walnut
Juglans hindsii
9
191
California
Black Walnut
Juglans hindsii
24
Remove
24
194
California
Black Walnut
Juglans hindsii
23
Remove
23
2972
California
Black Walnut
Juglans hindsii
13
Remove
13
Subtotal:
152
Total:
Remove: tree
in severe
decline
578
California
Black Walnut
Juglans hindsii
10
588
0
0
544
“Missing”
previously
removed
10
554
NON-NATIVE TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL
The remaining 24 trees proposed for removal by the applicant do not meet the definition
of a native tree, either because they are non-native or because they are too small to be
Initial Study
IS-37
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
considered a “tree” under the County Tree Ordinance. The loss of these individual trees
is not considered an impact requiring mitigation, however the overall loss of canopy
impacts the urban forest and should be mitigated pursuant to General Plan policy
CO-145 . Of the 24 trees proposed for removal one is dead and two have canopies
predominately covered by other tree canopies.
Tree #174 is a dead eucalyptus tree with one-12 inch stem, one-14 inch stem, and one20 inch stem. Because this tree is dead it is proposed for removal regardless of its
location in relation to the proposed project. Therefore, there is no mitigation proposed
and the existing, dead tree canopy was not included in the tree canopy to be mitigated.
Tree #2978 is a blue oak tree with two-three inch stems, which is too small to be
defined as a native tree, and it is nearly 100 percent overlapped by surrounding native
oak trees. All of the surrounding native oak trees, including this tree, are planned to be
removed as they are located on the proposed parcels and streets. The mitigation
required for the overlapping native oak trees will result in the creation of new, additional
tree canopy in Sacramento County. Because there is overlap with these canopies, the
additional tree canopy resulting from this mitigation will also compensate for the removal
of Tree #2978.
Tree #192, is an almond tree with two-six inch stems and one-seven inch stem, that is
overlapped by approximately 60 percent by Tree #191 a California black walnut tree.
Tree #191 is comprised of one-10 inch stem and one-14 inch stem. Both Tree #191 and
Tree #192 are planned to be removed as they are located on the proposed parcels and
partially located within the right-of-way of a proposed street. Because Tree #191 is
considered a native tree the mitigation required for this tree will result in the creation of
new, additional canopy in Sacramento County. Due to the overlap of these two tree
canopies, the additional tree canopy resulting from this mitigation will also compensate
for the removal of Tree #192.
With the elimination of the three trees above, there are a total of 21 trees with tree
canopies to be mitigated. The majority of these trees are located in a group with
overlapping canopies. The group overlap was calculated to be 9,382 square feet.
After eliminating the one dead tree, the two overlapped trees, and taking into account
the overlapping of the remaining trees, the final square footage of tree canopy to be
mitigated is 17,441 square feet.
The tree canopy information was provided by the applicant. A study was conducted
identifying the tree canopy loss that would result from the removal of the non-native
trees. This additional information included an analysis of the non-native tree canopies
that were located within the canopies of other trees. Plate IS-12 is an illustration,
provided by the applicant, of the tree canopy located on the project site. Although this
illustration includes both native and non-native trees, only the tree canopy loss for the
non-native trees was calculated for mitigation purposes; as the native tree loss is
identified by the loss of dbh inches and not the loss of tree canopy.
Initial Study
IS-38
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
Plate IS-12: Tree Canopy Exhibit
Initial Study
IS-39
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
TREES TO BE SAVED:
A total of 12 trees are proposed to be saved. Eleven of the 12 trees to be saved are
considered to be native trees and one is a valley oak that is not large enough to meet
the definition of a native tree. The 11 native trees to be saved have a combined dbh of
135 inches. Plate’s IS-8 and IS-9 both identify the locations of the trees to be saved.
Table IS-5 provides detailed information regarding the native trees to be saved.
Table IS-5
Native Trees to be Saved
Tree #
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
dbh
inches
Proposed
Impact
Mitigation
Requirement
202
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
22
Save
Protection
203
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
11
Save
Protection
204
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
18
Save
Protection
2953
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
7
Save
Protection
206
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
16
Save
Protection
2951
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
8
Save
Protection
2949
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
10
Save
Protection
2947
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
13
Save
Protection
2948
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
15
Save
Protection
2952
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
8
Save
Protection
2954
Valley Oak
Quercus lobata
7
Save
Protection
Total:
135
Although none of the trees proposed to be saved are located within areas proposed for
the construction of homes, they are located in the area designated for the park, a water
detention pond, a DWR pond maintenance road, and a fence around the pond. Several
of the trees could be severely impacted from both the construction of the maintenance
road and the long term use of the road by heavy equipment. The placement of
playground equipment, construction of park amenities such as trails and a a basketball
court could also impact the existing trees. Additionally, the grading and excavation
associated with detention pond construction could also be detrimental to both the shortterm and long-term health of a tree. Therefore, tree preservation measures will be
required to assure that none of the park or water detention site improvements will
damage or destroy the trees to be saved. If the trees can not be saved due to the
Initial Study
IS-40
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
location and width of the DWR pond maintenance road then mitigation shall be required
as identified per Mitigation Measure BR-4. Mitigation for tree protection is identified in
Mitigation Measure BR-5.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
A cultural resource analysis prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA)
was included in the 2008 Final EIR, which determined that there was no evidence of
significant prehistoric or historic period cultural resources within the project site. The
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) also indicated that no Sacred Lands are
listed as being located within the project site or adjacent areas. A group of historic
features likely from an old house and associated outbuildings was identified in the
northwest corner of the project site, but the cultural resource analysis prepared for the
2008 EIR found that the site was in poor condition and there was a lack of cultural
constituents. In addition, the resource did not meet the significance criteria to be
considered a significant resource, and was not eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR.
The 2008 EIR acknowledges the potential for the encountering buried resources that
are currently unknown, so mitigation is provided in the event that ground-disturbing
activities within the project site uncover such resources. The impact was determined to
be less than significant with mitigation.
In 2014 SWCA prepared an update to their 2006 analysis for the proposed project. As
part of this update SWCA contacted the NAHC, contacted Native American groups, and
conducted a new California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) records
search (July 31, 2014) and a pedestrian cultural resources survey of the project area by
an SWCA archaeologist (July 31, 2014). On August 7, 2014, SWCA requested a search
of the Sacred Lands Files from the NAHC. SWCA received a response letter via email
from the NAHC on August 27, 2014, stating that the results of the Sacred Lands File
search indicated that no Native American cultural resources were known in the
immediate vicinity of the project area. The NAHC also provided a list of 13 Native
American groups and individuals who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the
project area. On August 27, 2014, SWCA mailed letters to each of the contacts
identifying the project location and requesting input, and conducted follow-up telephone
calls on September 10, 2014. As of September 16, 2014, two have responded to
SWCA: the Colfax-Todds Valley Consolidated Tribe and the Shingle Springs Band of
Miwok Indians. Neither was aware of cultural resources within the project area. .
A new CHRIS records search and pedestrian cultural resources survey of the project
area were done on July 31, 2014. Both the records search and the pedestrian survey
found the same former residential complex described in the 2008 EIR. The updated
cultural resources survey made the same determination as before; that the resources
was not significant and is not eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR.
Initial Study
IS-41
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
IMPACT: CULTURAL RESOURCES
Based on this 2014 updated information, analysis and mitigation found in the 2008 EIR
remain applicable for this project. The prior mitigation measures are still applicable to
the proposed project and are included below under Environmental Mitigation Measures.
The proposed project would not result in a change in the lack of significant cultural
resources within and surrounding the project site. In addition, it would involve similar
ground-disturbing activities as the prior project, so the potential impact associated with
the potential for uncovering currently unknown buried cultural resources is the same.
Therefore, the impact on cultural resources is less than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation Measures are necessary to ensure that identified significant impacts of the
project are reduced to a level of less than significant. The following mitigation measures
were included in the 2008 EIR. However, in some cases, they have been slightly
modified to reflect minor changes in County policy or changes to agency names. If this
is the case, the mitigation measure will be labeled as “(Revised)” for clarity. Some of the
previously adopted mitigation measures are no longer necessary due to minor changes
in regulations or because the revised project would result in less severe impacts than
the previously-adopted project or because mitigation methodologies have changed and
a new mitigation measure is more appropriate. New mitigation measures are listed
separately, below.
PRIOR AND REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES
Previously adopted mitigation measures from the 2008 EIR that are no longer required
for the current proposal are listed below by topic area.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
•
TC-1 (Revised). Concurrent with the build-out of the proposed project, modify
the 28th Street and Elverta Road intersection to provide one through lane and
one separate left turn lane on the Elverta Road westbound approach, consistent
with County of Sacramento Department of Transportation standards.
Alternatively, and at the discretion of the County Transportation, the applicant
may pay an in-lieu fee amount that is subject to County Transportation
Department approval. This mitigation measure does not preclude the project
developer from seeking a credit against any required payment of Antelope Major
Roadway Fees or County District 1 Roadway (or successor) fees, in order to
offset the cost of implementing this mitigation measure.
•
TC-2. Provide fair share funding (5%) to the satisfaction of the County
Department of Transportation to modify the 28th Street and Elverta Road
intersection to include an exclusive right-turn lane and left-turn lane at the
northbound 28th Street approach, consistent with County Department of
Transportation standards. This mitigation measure does not preclude the project
Initial Study
IS-42
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
developer from seeking a credit against any required payment of Antelope Major
Roadway Fees or County District 1 Roadway (or successor) fees, in order to
offset the cost of implementing this mitigation measure.
•
TC-3 (Revised). Concurrent with the planned widening of Elverta Road, install a
traffic signal at the Street A/Elverta Road intersection, consistent with County
Department of Transportation standards and subject to County Transportation
approval. Cost for installation of the signal shall be equally shared by the Elverta
Park and Gibson Crossing project developers. This mitigation measure does not
preclude the project developer from seeking a credit against any required
payment of Antelope Major Roadway Fees or County District 1 Roadway (or
successor) fees, in order to offset the cost of implementing this mitigation
measure.
AIR QUALITY
•
AQ-1 (Revised). The project shall provide a plan for approval by the Community
Development Department Planning and Environmental Review Division and
SMAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road vehicles
to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor
vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet average 20 percent NOx reduction and
45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent California Air
Resources Board fleet average at time of construction.
•
AQ-2 (Revised). The project representative shall submit to the Community
Development Department Planning and Environmental Review Division and
SMAQMD a comprehensive inventory of all off-road construction equipment,
equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or
more hours during any portion of the construction project. The inventory shall
include the horsepower rating, engine production year, and projected hours of
use or fuel throughput for each piece of equipment. The inventory shall be
updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except
that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no
construction activity occurs. At least 48 hours prior to the use of subject heavyduty off-road equipment, the project representative shall provide SMAQMD with
the anticipated construction timeline including start date, and name and phone
number of the project manager and on-site foreman.
•
AQ-3 (Revised). The project shall ensure that emissions from all off-road diesel
powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for
more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40
percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately, and the
Community Development Department Planning and Environmental Review
Division and SMAQMD shall be notified within 48 hours of identification of noncompliant equipment. A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be
made at least weekly, and a monthly summary of the visual survey results shall
be submitted throughout the duration of the project, except that the monthly
Initial Study
IS-43
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction
activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of
vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey. The SMAQMD and/or
other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance.
Nothing in this section shall supersede other SMAQMD or state rules or
regulations.
•
AQ-4. Not required.
•
AQ-5. Not required.
•
AQ-6 through AQ-18. Incorporated into new Measure CC-1, below.
NOISE
•
NO-1 (Revised). Prior to the issuance of any building permits; construct a noise
barrier to a minimum height of six (6) feet along the northern property line of all
residential lots adjacent to Elverta Road. The proposed 20 foot wide Public
Utilities Easement shall include a landscape corridor, a five foot wide sidewalk, a
second landscape corridor, and the noise barrier. The noise barrier shall be
constructed as a six foot high masonry wall. The noise barrier shall comply with
Zoning Code (Section 5.2.5.E) development standards for sound walls adjacent
to streets. The six foot high noise barrier wall shall wrap around the entire east
property line of Lots 15, 16, and 133, and the entire west property line of Lots 8,
129, and 130. The location of the required noise barrier is illustrated on Plate IS8.
•
NO-2 (Revised). Prior to issuance of any building permits; construct a two foot
high berm with a six foot high solid noise barrier, a ten foot wide landscape
corridor, and a five foot wide sidewalk along the eastern property lines of Lots
170 – 180 (Scotland Drive) to reduce noise associated with the adjacent
commercial activities. The noise barrier shall be constructed as a masonry wall
and the berm/wall shall tie into an existing eight foot masonry wall near the
northeast corner of Lot 170 and remain until near the southeast corner of Lot
180.
NO-3 (Revised). All second floor bedroom windows of residences constructed
adjacent to Elverta Road, which have a view of Elverta Road, shall have a
minimum sound transmission class (STC) rating of 30.
•
•
NO-4 (Revised). Mechanical ventilation (air conditioning) shall be provided for all
residences located in the project to allow the occupants to close doors and
windows as desired to achieve additional acoustic isolation.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
•
BR-1 (Revised). The proposed project is expected to result in the loss of
approximately 0.059 acres of seasonal wetlands. Prior to approval of any grading
Initial Study
IS-44
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
permits for any development of the site, the applicant shall obtain all applicable
permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board for the proposed modification to on-site wetlands and mitigate for
habitat loss in accordance with the published regulatory guidelines. Mitigate for
all wetlands that are directly impacted on a 1:1 basis. Acceptable means of
mitigation include placement of a permanent conservation easement over an
equivalent amount of wetland habitat, purchase of credits from a mitigation bank,
or other similar methods, subject to the approval of the Environmental
Coordinator. A copy of any required USACE permits and verification of any
required payment shall be submitted to the Community Development Department
Planning and Environmental Review Division.
•
BR-2 (Revised). Prior to the approval of any grading and/or building permits for
any development of the site, consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
obtain all applicable permits, as necessary, for incidental take of federally listed
fairy/tadpole shrimp species. The applicant shall implement any and all
measures included in the USFWS Biological Opinion issued as a result of the
consultation. A copy of any survey results and any required permits shall be
submitted to the Community Development Department Planning and
Environmental Review Division.
•
BR-3. Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans, Building Permits, or
recordation of the final map, whichever occurs first, implement one of the
following options to mitigate for the loss of 38± acres of Swainson’s Hawk
foraging habitat on the project site:
•
a.
The project proponent shall, to the satisfaction of the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, prepare and implement a Swainson’s
hawk mitigation plan that will include preservation of Swainson’s hawk
foraging habitat.
b.
The project proponent shall utilize one or more of the mitigation options
(land dedication and/or fee payment established in Sacramento County’s
Swainson’s hawk Impact Mitigation Program (Chapter 16.130 of the
Sacramento County Code).
c.
Should the County Board of Supervisors adopt a Swainson’s hawk
mitigation policy/program (which may include a mitigation fee payable
prior to issuance of building permits) prior to the implementation of one of
the measures above, which may exempt this project, the project
proponent may be subject to that program instead.
BR-4 (Revised). The removal of 416 inches dbh of native oak trees (see Table
IS-4) shall be compensated for by planting native oak trees (valley oak/Quercus
lobata, interior live oak/Quercus wislizenii, and blue oak/Quercus douglasii)
equivalent to the dbh inches lost, based on the ratios listed below, at locations
Initial Study
IS-45
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
that are authorized by the Environmental Coordinator. On-site preservation of
native oak trees that are less than 6 inches (<6 inches) dbh, may also be used to
meet this compensation requirement.
The removal of 138 inches dbh of native northern California black walnut trees
shall be compensated by planting native northern California black walnut trees
(Juglans californica var. hindsii) equivalent to the dbh inches lost, based on the
ratios listed below, at locations that are authorized by the Environmental
Coordinator. On-site preservation of native walnut trees that are less than 6
inches (< 6 inches) dbh, may also be used to meet this compensation
requirement.
Equivalent compensation based on the following ratio is required:
•
one preserved native tree < 6 inches dbh on-site = 1 inch dbh
•
one D-pot seedling (40 cubic inches or larger) = 1 inch dbh
•
one 15-gallon tree = 1 inch dbh
•
one 24-inch box tree = 2 inches dbh
•
one 36-inch box tree = 3 inches dbh
Replacement tree planting shall be completed prior to issuance of building
permits or a bond shall be posted by the applicant in order to provide funding
for purchase, planting, irrigation, and 3-year maintenance period, should the
applicant default on replacement tree mitigation. The bond shall be in an
amount equal to the prevailing rate of the County Tree Preservation Fund.
Prior to the approval of Improvement Plans or building permits, a
Replacement Oak Tree Planting Plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist
or licensed landscape architect and shall be submitted to the Environmental
Coordinator for approval. The Replacement Oak Tree Planting Plan(s) shall
include the following minimum elements:
1. Species, size and locations of all replacement plantings and < 6-inch
dbh trees to be preserved
2. Method of irrigation
3. If planting in soils with a hardpan/duripan or claypan layer, include the
Sacramento County Standard Tree Planting Detail L-1, including the
10-foot deep boring hole to provide for adequate drainage
4. Planting, irrigation, and maintenance schedules;
5. Identification of the maintenance entity and a written agreement with
that entity to provide care and irrigation of the trees for a 3-year
establishment period and to replace any of the replacement trees
which do not survive during that period.
Initial Study
IS-46
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
6. Designation of 20-foot root zone radius and landscaping to occur within
the radius of trees < 6 inches dbh to be preserved on-site.
No replacement tree shall be planted within 15 feet of the driplines of existing
oak trees or landmark size trees that are retained on-site, or within 15 feet of
a building foundation or swimming pool excavation. The minimum spacing for
replacement oak trees shall be 20 feet on-center. Examples of acceptable
planting locations are publicly owned lands, common areas, and landscaped
frontages (with adequate spacing). Generally unacceptable locations are
utility easements (PUE, sewer, storm drains), under overhead utility lines,
private yards of single family lots (including front yards), and roadway
medians.
Oak trees <6 inches dbh to be retained on-site shall have at least a 20-foot
radius suitable root zone. The suitable root zone shall not have impermeable
surfaces, turf/lawn, dense plantings, soil compaction, drainage conditions that
create ponding, utility easements, or other overstory tree(s) within 20 feet of
the tree to be preserved. Trees to be retained shall be determined to be
healthy and structurally sound for future growth, by an ISA Certified Arborist
subject to Environmental Coordinator approval.
If oak tree replacement plantings are demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Environmental Coordinator to be infeasible for any or all trees removed, then
compensation shall be through payment into the County Tree Preservation
Fund. Payment shall be made at a rate of $325.00 per dbh inch removed but
not otherwise compensated, or at the prevailing rate at the time payment into
the fund is made.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
•
CR-1 (Revised).
Should any cultural resources, such as structural features,
unusual amounts of bone or shell, artifacts, human remains, or architectural
remains be encountered during any development activities, work shall be
suspended and the Community Development Department, Planning and
Environmental Review Division shall be immediately notified at (916) 874-6141.
At that time, the Planning and Environmental Review Division will coordinate any
necessary investigation of the find with appropriate specialists as needed. The
project applicant shall be required to implement any mitigation deemed
necessary for the protection of such cultural resources. Additionally, pursuant to
Section 5097.97 of the California Public Resources Code and Section 7050.5 of
the California Health and Safety Code, in case of the discovery of human
remains, all work is to stop and the County Coroner shall be immediately notified.
If the remains are determined to be Native American, guidelines of the Native
American Heritage Commission shall be adhered to in the treatment and
disposition of the remains.
Initial Study
IS-47
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
NEW MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures have been added to reflect new regulations.
Mitigation Measure CC-1 replaces Mitigation Measures AQ-6 through AQ-18. Mitigation
Measures BR-5 and BR-6 have been added to address new County tree protection
requirements that were not in place at the time the 2008 Final EIR was certified. None
of these mitigation measures reflect an increase in the severity of impacts over what
was disclosed in the 2008 Final EIR or new significant impacts.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
•
CC-1. Project emissions shall be reduced by 979.2 metric tons of carbon dioxide
annually, so total annual Project emissions do not exceed 2448 metric tons of
carbon dioxide, through one or a combination of the following measures:
A. In consultation with the Division of Planning and Environmental Review
and to the satisfaction of the Environmental Coordinator, the Project
proponent shall submit a plan detailing a set of quantitative measures that
achieve a 979.2 MT reduction in CO2 emissions, prior to the issuance of
building permits. Measures may include but are not limited to:
1. Exceed Title 24 (usual reduction: 5% electricity use, 10% natural gas
use)
2. Install High Efficiency Lighting (in public areas)
3. Install Energy Efficient Appliances (Clothes Washer and Dryer, Dish
Washer, Fan, and Refrigerators)
4. Install On-site Renewable Energy or Carbon-Neutral Power Systems
(e.g. Roof-Mounted Photovoltaic System)
5. Install Low-Flow Bathroom Faucet, Kitchen Faucet, Toilet and Shower
6. Reduce Turf in Landscapes and Lawns
7. Use Water-Efficient Irrigation Systems
8. Other approved measure (e.g. CAPCOA measures) that has
quantifiable GHG emissions reductions
And/Or
B. If the Sacramento County Climate Action Plan is in place at the time of
Project development, then the Project proponent may conform to the
Plan’s measures to reduce CO2 emissions.
The developer shall submit written proof of purchase and installation of chosen
CO2 emissions reductions to the Community Development Department Planning
and Environmental Review Division, to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Coordinator.
Initial Study
IS-48
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
•
BR-5. With the exception of the trees removed and compensated for through
Mitigation Measure BR-4, all native trees (See Table IS-5) on the project site, all
portions of adjacent off-site native trees which have driplines that extend onto the
project site, and all off-site native trees which may be impacted by utility
installation and/or improvements associated with this project, shall be preserved
and protected as follows:
1. A circle with a radius measurement from the trunk of the tree to the tip
of its longest limb shall constitute the dripline protection area of the
tree. Limbs must not be cut back in order to change the dripline. The
area beneath the dripline is a critical portion of the root zone and
defines the minimum protected area of the tree. Removing limbs
which make up the dripline does not change the protected area.
2. Chain link fencing or a similar protective barrier shall be installed one
foot outside the driplines of the native trees prior to initiating project.
3. No signs, ropes, cables (except cables which may be installed by a
certified arborist to provide limb support) or any other items shall be
attached to the native trees.
4. No vehicles, construction equipment, mobile home/office, supplies,
materials or facilities shall be driven, parked, stockpiled or located
within the driplines of the native trees.
5. Any soil disturbance (scraping, grading, trenching, and excavation) is
to be avoided within the driplines of the native trees. Where this is
necessary, an ISA Certified Arborist will provide specifications for this
work, including methods for root pruning, backfill specifications and
irrigation management guidelines.
6. All underground utilities and drain or irrigation lines shall be routed
outside the driplines of native trees. Trenching within protected tree
driplines is not permitted. If utility or irrigation lines must encroach upon
the dripline, they should be tunneled or bored under the tree under the
supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist.
7. If temporary haul or access roads must pass within the driplines of oak
trees, a roadbed of six inches of mulch or gravel shall be created to
protect the root zone. The roadbed shall be installed from outside of
the dripline and while the soil is in a dry condition, if possible. The
roadbed material shall be replenished as necessary to maintain a sixinch depth.
8. Drainage patterns on the site shall not be modified so that water
collects or stands within, or is diverted across, the dripline of oak trees.
9. No sprinkler or irrigation system shall be installed in such a manner
that it sprays water within the driplines of the oak trees.
Initial Study
IS-49
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
10. Tree pruning that may be required for clearance during construction
must be performed by an ISA Certified Arborist or Tree Worker and in
accordance with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
A300 pruning standards and the International Society of Arboriculture
(ISA) “Tree Pruning Guidelines.”
11. Landscaping beneath the oak trees may include non-plant materials
such as boulders, decorative rock, wood chips, organic mulch, noncompacted decomposed granite, etc. Landscape materials shall be
kept two (2) feet away from the base of the trunk. The only plant
species which shall be planted within the driplines of the oak trees are
those which are tolerant of the natural semi-arid environs of the trees.
Limited drip irrigation approximately twice per summer is
recommended for the understory plants.
12. Any fence/wall that will encroach into the dripline protection area of any
protected tree shall be constructed using grade beam wall panels and
posts or piers set no closer than 10 feet on center. Posts or piers shall
be spaced in such a manner obstruction, in order to avoid damage to
the trees and their root system.
13. Leaf mulch (wood and brush clippings, not decorative bark) shall be
added within the drip lines of the trees to a depth of 3-4 inches. Mulch
shall not be piled up around the trunk and a gap of 6-12 inches shall be
left around each tree trunk.
•
BR-6 Removal of 17,441 square feet of non-native tree canopy for development
shall be mitigated by creation of new tree canopy equivalent to the acreage of
non-native tree canopy removed. New tree canopy acreage shall be calculated
using the Sacramento County Department of Transportation 15-year shade cover
values for tree species. Preference is given to on-site mitigation, but if this is
infeasible, then funding shall be contributed to the Sacramento Tree
Foundation’s Greenprint Program in an amount proportional to the tree canopy
lost.
MITIGATION MEASURE COMPLIANCE
Comply with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for this project
as follows:
1. The proponent shall comply with the MMRP for this project, including
the payment of a fee to cover the Department of Community
Development, Planning and Environmental Review Division staff costs
incurred during implementation of the MMRP. The MMRP fee for this
project is $10,400.00. This fee includes administrative costs of
$800.00.
Initial Study
IS-50
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
2. Until the MMRP has been recorded and the administrative portion of the MMRP
fee has been paid, no final parcel map or final subdivision map for the subject
property shall be approved. Until the balance of the MMRP fee has been paid,
no encroachment, grading, building, sewer connection, water connection or
occupancy permit from Sacramento County shall be approved.
CONCLUSION:
Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15162, the Environmental
Coordinator has determined that there are no substantial changes in the project or in
the circumstances under which the project is to be undertaken and that the project
involves no new significant impacts that were not considered in the previous
Environmental Impact Report (Final Environmental Impact Report for Elverta Park
General Plan Amendment, Community Plan Amendment, Rezone, Tentative
Subdivision Map, Special Development Permit, and Affordable Housing Plan; Control
Number: 05-GPB-CZB-SDP-SPB-AHS-0534; State Clearinghouse Number:
2006012097). However, some changes and/or additions to the original Environmental
Impact Report are necessary; therefore, this addendum to the adopted Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations,
Section 15164(a). No further Environmental Documents are required.
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS:
That the previous Environmental Impact Report entitled Final Environmental Impact
Report for Elverta Park General Plan Amendment, Community Plan Amendment,
Rezone, Tentative Subdivision Map, Special Development Permit, and Affordable
Housing Plan (Control Number: 05-GPB-CZB-SDP-SPB-AHS-0534; State
Clearinghouse Number: 2006012097), with this Addendum, is still adequate and
appropriate for the proposed project.
That the previously adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as modified
in this Addendum, is applicable to the project.
Date:
By:
Catherine Hack, Environmental Coordinator
Initial Study
IS-51
PLNP2014-00118
Elverta Park
ADDENDUM PREPARERS
Environmental Coordinator:
Catherine Hack
Assistant Environmental Coordinator: Tim Hawkins
Section Manager: Tim Hawkins
Project Leader:
Cindy Schaer
Office Manager:
Belinda Wekesa-Batts
Administrative Support:
Andrea Guerra
Initial Study
IS-52
PLNP2014-00118