A 5

s 6

MINUTE. IJ.~M This Calendar Item No.~-was approved as

Minute Item No. &_ by the California State Lands Co~,&;" by a ~ote of 3 t~t its 5 meeting.

CALENDAR ITEM

C25

GENERAL LEASE - PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE USE

05/12/97 W25340 D. Jones

APPLICANT: The Sierra Health Foundation, a California

Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation 1321 Garden Highway Sacramento, California 95833

AREA, LAND TYPE, AND LOCATION: 0.46 acre, more or less, of tide and submerged land in the Sacramento River, in the city of Sacramento, Sacramento County.

AUTHORIZED USE: The construction and maintenance of approximately 560 feet of bank protection.

LEASE TERM: 25 years, beginning April 1, 1996.

CONSIDERATION: The public use and benefit; with the State reserving the right at any time to set a monetary rental if the Commission finds such action to be in the State's best interest.

SPECIFIC LEASE PROVISIONS: Insurance:

$500,000 Combined Single Limit.

OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION: 1. Applicant owns the uplands adjoining the lease premises.

2. An EIR was prepared and certified for this project by the city of Sacramento. The State Lands Commission has reviewed this document and the Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the lead agency.

3. Findings made in conformance with section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines are contained in Exhibit C attached hereto.

-1-CALENDAR PAGE 99

MINUTE PAGE 000579

CALENDAR ITEM NO. C25 (CONT'D)

4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations made in conformance with section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines is contained in Exhibit C attached hereto.

5. This activity involves lands identified as possessing significant environmental values pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 6370, et seq. Based upon the staffs consultation with the persons nominating such lands and through the CEQA review process, it is the staffs opinion that the project, as proposed, is consistent with its use classification.

APPROVALS OBTAINED: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Reclamation Board.

EXHIBITS: Site Map. Lease Description Location Map.

A. A-1. B. C. D.

CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Mitigation Monitoring Program.

PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT DEADLINE: NIA.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION:

CEQA FINDING: 1. FIND THAT AN EIR WAS PREPARED AND CERTIFIED FOR THIS

PROJECT BY THE CITY OF SACRAMENTO AND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN.

2. ADOPT THE FINDINGS MADE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 15096(h) OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT C, ATTACHED HERETO.

3. ADOPT THE REVEGETATION MONITORING PLAN, AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT D, ATTACHED HERETO.

-2-CALENDAR PAGE 100

MINUTE PAGE 000

CALENDAR ITEM NO. C25 (CONT'D)

4. ADOPT THE STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS MADE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 15093 OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, AS CONTAINED IN EXHIBIT C, ATTACHED HERETO.

SIGNIFICANT LANDS INVENTORY FINDING: FIND THAT THIS ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE USE CLASSIFICATION DESIGNATED FOR THE LAND PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTIONS 6370, ET SEQ.

AUTHORIZATION: AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE TO THE SIERRA HEAL TH FOUNDATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, OF A GENERAL LEASE - PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE USE, EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 1996, FOR A TERM OF 25 YEARS, FOR BANK PROTECTION PURPOSES, ON THE LAND SHOWN ON EXHIBIT A ATTACHED AND BY REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF; CONSIDERATION: THE PUBLIC USE AND BENEFIT, WITH THE STATE RESERVING THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME TO SET A MONETARY RENTAL IF THE COMMISSION FINDS SUCH ACTION TO BE IN THE STATE'S BEST INTEREST; INSURANCE: LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT COVERAGE OF $500,000.

-3-CALENDAR PAGE 101

MINUTE PAGE 0(}058,1

a -~ .. •

~ I"!

"

p oz ~il ~ ... 1;-,.~ .. ~ . "" ~

l>i

~·

--.. z.---J.~.V .9"'S-(JO.SJ•J#

Au .. ,..,. .. .-~.,,

" /\ .: G (

i : ;( .. f • ''Ttt• t ! --~

,. I

/f

I L-

. This exhibit is solely for purposes of generally defining the le:ise premises, L NDAR PIS§iibit A 102 is not intended to be, nor shall it be construed as, a waiver or limitation of aA.i~--1~---====-.:..:::..---11---i1 Seate interest in the subject or any other property. MI

'..._

w 25340 EXHIBIT "A-I "

SIERRA HEALTH FOUNDATION

(STATE LANDS LEASE AREA ~ SLOPE REVETMENT)

BEGif\lllING AT A POINT, SAID POINT BEING S69°28'27"W 126.39 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 1, AS SAID PARCEL IS SHClYN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP REc::o:1DED IN BOOK 141 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 19, RECORDS OF SACRAMENTO caJNTY; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE SClJTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, N69°28'27"E 9.95 FEET; THENCE S20°39'36"W 25.30 FEET; THENCE N69°20'24"W 20.00 FEET; THENCE N71°42'05"W 97.08 FEET; THENCE N55 °1 B' 14 "W 28. 86 FEET; THENCE N4 7 ° 05' 28 "W 23. 77 FEET; THENCE N 73°19'51"W 43.10 FEET; THENCE N73°29'59"W 55.15 FEET; THENCE N72°38'31"W 52.09 FEET; THENCE N69°56'13"W 48.00 FEET; THENCE N68°46'01 "W 50.00 FEET; THENCE N59°28'27"W 46.69 FEET; THENCE N62°12'54"W 56.44 FEET; THENCE N66°28'39"W 50.06 FEET; THENCE N73°20'39"W 50.12 FEET; THENCE N60°56'51"W 24.80 FEET; THENCE N00°23'00"E 13.16 FEET; THENCE S76°25'58"E 26.58 FEET; THENCE S70°16'28"E 45.21 FEET; THENCE S70°02'08"E 112.91 FEET; THENCE S68°16'16"E 179.25 FEET; THENCE S75°47'29"E 69.38 FEET; THENCE S71°12'10"E 60.02 FEET; THEICE S46°52'12"E 45.51 FEET; THEICE S73°51 '40"E 26.44 FEET; THENCE N72°15'23"E 61 .59 FEET; THEICE S74°12'26"E 20.10 FEET; THENCE S07°35'13"W 19.54 FEET; THEl'CE S14°30'10"W 30.39 FEET; THENCE S54°51'57"E 1.65 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

July z. 1998 IOl.01A

CALENDAR PAGE 103

MINUTE PAGE 000583 l!:::::::========================:::!I ' .. --;:.,, -:

I• '... ,-­---•I I c-..Gllfr• • ~

i..i,f";ir-"'!"'"---f-": ... ~. I II"•-..,._ ! C

I II

-•

,., 5

! .....

... II

...

• •

, I

I

I I

'

' '

' I

' \

I

' I

\ \

' ' '

••

' \

i

•

t

PAGE

w 25340

£XHIBIT C

CEQASTATEMENTOFFINDINGSOFFACTS AND

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

FOR

&f:BBA HEALTH FOtJNDATXON CENTER E1"B

(State ClearinghoU88 Number 91012011)

Prepared B:r-

City of Sacramento Environmental Servicee Di"riaion October US. 1992

CALENDAR PAGE

(iudadiug eligibilit) foz ?iatiuzwl Ilegiatez aomimatiu11) and; n aiguifiC&llC: t:boir lorntiuim mast be mapped and a data wHectinn pzopam impieweutu:l: '!'be m chaaciugiat mud acting the diving opez atiuus should detez mine the aiguificm1ce of mzy and aH finclB of :sh:ipwzeck zesuwcea Fw chex: witigaciu11 . ~

weaswea; n :ia 'J, wiH uaal tu be detezminad by the mchawlug:iat in cba:ige

Ali sig1Iilica:nt sabmezged ecd:twad zwwwwm mast be mappal iu place; phutz>gzapbed oz chawu tu i:l:luscate theiz zdztiwe pcaiciuim; and any otl:zez aig1zifimxt data 1eqahai: Siew wast be za:::uzdal accu1Jia1 tu a&a111clazd aaidcli::um '!'he adviwbiiity of 1euiavaJ mid ematiu14 w wcli as detezwinat:iou of an; uthu: :wit:igatiou wmmc:a 11a: J ahouid test with the azchaeoluaiac iu chm:ae: A zeput t mast be ptef*Ial detailing t:he find; its aiguifium:ce mzd the hismric:ad deta:il:a of LIB' c:iatiun thaw m&J be obtained:

With the exception of the chang• to impact .catementa and mitigationa noted above. all other impac:ta and mitiptio:D9 ..mgned to the Propoeed Project in the Draft and Final

Environmental Impact Report fortb.ia project remain valid and unchanged by thia addendum..

4. Inslµaj on jp the Bos;ord: The above fincling11 and modifications conatirnte an addendum to the Draft and Final EIR prepared for the Sierra Foundation Project (State Clearinghouse Nw:nber 91012011), and are considered part of the admini.an:rative record for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

13

CALENDAR PAGE 106

9~~E PAGE 000586 . -,;.

·; CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OFF-ACT AND STATEMENT OF OVElUUDING

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED SIERRA HEALTH FOUNDATION CENTER

PROJECT

L CERTIFICATION OF TSE FINAL EIR

Fac;t!! in Suppgrt of Fjndjpg:r

A.. The City of Sacramento cau.ecl an Environm~ntal Impact Report (''EIR") on the Sierra Health Foundation Center project to be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.. Public :a-ourc- Code. Section 21000 s:t

SQ, <CEQA>. the CEQA Guidelines. Code of California Regulations. Title XIV, Section 15000 =:. sg,. and the City of Sacramento environmental guidelines.

B. A Notice of' Preparation <NOP) of the draft EIR waa f'iled by the City of Sacramento with the State Clearinghouae at the Office of Planning and Re.ea.rch. The State Clearinghouae aasigned Clearinghouae Number 91012011. The NOP was cii.Rributed to all responsible and trustee agenciea. and interested. group&. organiz.acion.s. and individuala on December 31. 1990. The City accepted comments on the NOP from December 31. 1990 to J'anuary 30, l99L

C. Copies of the Sierra Health Foundation Center draft EIR were distributed by the City of Sacramento to the State Clearinghou.ee. to thoee public agencies which have juriadiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested parties and agencies. A public review period for the Sierra Health Foundation Cen~r draft EIR began on March 6. 1992 and concluded on April 20, 1992. In addition on April 16. 1992 the City Pl•nning Commi:mion held a public hearing to hear comments on the Draft EIR. After the cloee of the comment period, the City r-.pcmded to all of the wril:ten comments that were received.

D. The Sierra Health Foundation Center clraf't EIR was then supplemented to

incorporate comment.a received during the public comment period and the City's responaes to thoee comment& Aa so revised. the Sierra Health Foundation

Center final EIR. which includes Sierra Health Foundation Center draft EIR (collectively the '"EIR"). was prepared and releaaed to the public on June 23, 1992.

E. AA A.c:ldendum to the Final EIR was prepared in October 1992. and circulated to the City Council along with theee find.in.gs. The Addendum waa prepared to d--=ribe the reviBed project which deleted the marina. restaurant and floating pavilion. structure. and which su.betituted 12.400 equare feet of commercial apace for an equal aroO'Wlt of office apace in Building B. The removal of these structures resulted in reduced impacta to the Sacra.men.to River system. The addendum deacribes the areas of impacts which result from removal of the

marina. restaurant and floating pavilion structure. The project deecribed in the

Addendum. these findings and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan ia the -.me aa

l 107 CALENDAR PAGE

M:INUTE PAGE OC0587

the "Propoeecl Project" deac:ribed in the Draft and"Final EIR except that the projec:t no longer includes a 20 boat marina. a floating restaurant and pavilion and commercial space. The revised project includes Building A. a 23.000 aqua.re foot three level office building with parking, Building B, a 37,000 square fo.>t four level office building with parking, land8caping and a gab~d fabric riverbank protection system. A total of 214 spacea are provided.

, r F. The following information ia incorporated by reference and made part of the

record supporting these findings:

L The Sierra Health Foundation Center draft EIR. final EIR. including the addendum to the EIR and all documenta relied upon or incorporated by reference therein;

2. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan dated July 31, 1992;

3. Testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted or delivered to the City relating to this project or the EIR;

4. All sca:ff reports, memoranda. maps. letters, minutes of meetings anci

other document8 relied upon or prepared by City llt.&ff relating to the project including but not limited to City of Sac:rmnento General Plan. and the Environ.mental Impact Report for the City of Sacramento General Plan. Update.

Findjpp

A Following notice duly and regularly given .. required by law, and all interested parti• expreaing a d.eaire to comment thereon or object thereto having been heard. the Sierra Health Foundation Center Em and comments an.d responaes thereto having been considered. the City Council makes the following determinations

L The Sierra Health Foundation Center !:IR wu prepared an.d completed in compliance with CEQA.

2. The Sierra Health Foundation Center Em baa been presented to the City

Cow:u:il ~hich reviewed and conaidered the inf orma1:ion therein prior to acting on the propaeec:l Sierra Hee.Ith Foundation Center project.

3. The Sierra Health Foundation Center EIR reflect.s the independent judszDent of the 1-.d agency, California Environ.mental Quality Act,

Section 21082.1CcX3).

2 CALENDAR PAGE 108

000588 '.

I !

I IL FIND:n-l'GS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS

The Environmental Impact Report for the Sierra Health Foundation Center propmal. prepared in compliance with the California Environ.mental Quality Act. evalua~ the potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacta which could result from adoption of the project or alternativee to the project.

Becauae the EIR indicates the implementation of the project (or project alternatives} would result in certain unavoidable adverae impacts. the City is required under CEQA. and the State and City guidelines adopted pursuant thereto. to make certain find.in.gs with x-eepec:t to theae impacts. The required findi:c.ga appear in the following eectiona of thi.e document. Thia document li8t8 all the identified significant impac:ts of the project. Tbe significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a leu-than..Cgni:ficant level a.re con.sidered accepi:able by the City Council based on a determination that the benefit.a of the project O.isted in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. aection VII> outweigh the riaka of the potentially significant environ.mental effec:t.s of the project.

A. SIGNIFICANT tMP \CTS WH!kH CAN BE Ayomrn

Finding - As authori::ed by Public Reeou.rc:es Code Section 21081 and Title 14. California Administrative Code Sectioaa 15091. 15092. and 15093. the City finda that changes or alterations have been required in. or incorporated into, the Sierra Health Foundation Center project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental impac:ta lifted below, as identified in the Sierra Health Foundation Center EIR.

These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the City aa stated below.

L LA.i.'1'D USE - 5.l-lA Conflict with the General Plan and Coxmnunity Plan Designation.s

a. Significant Immc:t The project site is designated as Open Space in the SGPU and daignated Riverfron1: in the South Natomas Community Plan. An impact will u:iat i:f the project is incoc.aistent wi-!l the Land Uae Designa:tions.

b. FBS1j.1 in Si;-,pgrt of Fjpdinc The lligni:ficant effect 1Uted above will be reduced to a 1- than significant level with the following mitigation m-..urec

L To alleviate the inc:onaistencies of the propoaed project the City Council can elect to either approve an alternative to the project which preaervee open space11 or make f'indin.gs and approve a General Plan redeeign.ation from Parka, Recreation. and Open Space to Community/Neighborhood Commercial and Of'f'icee and amend the South Natomas Community Plan from Riverfront to Office/Office Park.

2. LAND USE- 6.1-1.B Conflict wi1:h the Open Space Goa.la of the G,:neral Plan

a. Sin>ifinmt Impact Development of the Propoeed Project includes buildings,

3 CALENDAR PAGE 109

MINUTE PAGE 000 92-804 ~ .; I•

: .. ~,:,~;

9

pavement and land8ce:pe within a demgnated A-99 flood zone. Thi. project may

be 8'Ubject to flooding and may place people in jeopardy of flood relat.ed baza.rda (pleaae refer to the Hydrology Section). The Propoeed Project ia inccm.siatent with Goal A and Goal C.

b. Fasts in Sµppgrt pf Fipdini' Thia impact will be reduced to the exi:ent fwible with the following mitigation meaaure11 identified in the Sierra Health Foundation Center EIR.

L To alleviate the impact of approving development in a flood prone area. the project will be required to meet all structural demgn restrictions impoMd on non-residea.Cal structures in Nato.maa until such time aa the levee11 on the Sac:ramenTO River are .r.abilized. The adopted "Land Uee Policy With.in the 100 year Floodplain in the City and County of Sacramento" require8 oompliance with either elevation of the 9tructuree

or floodproofing requirement.a contained in the City'a floodplain management regulat:ioD.8 or compliance with flow through design requirement& In addition. all structures (including fill or eroaion control features) located in the Sacramento River floodway mwn; be deaigned with a certification by a profmaional regiatered engineer deznonatrating that the encroachment will not rmult in any incre.ue of flood level. during the occurrence of a bue flood di.charge (Sac:nu:nento City Building Code Sec:tion 9.1005 (d)).

3. LAND USE - 5.l-2A Zoning Consiatency

a. Simifisapt Y,,past; The Propcwd Project will require removal of t?w and topeoil contrary to the American River Parkway-Flood Plain (ARF-F> zoning.

b. F11ct.s jn Support of Fjndjni' Implementation of the following mwures will alleviate the inco.nsistency in :oning:

L Rezone the aubject site from .ARF-F to OB-PUD and.

2. Implement Mitigation Mwures 5.1-5 <Land Uee Flooding),.5.8 and 5.9 (Hydrology and Erasicm.) and 5.10-1 and 2 (Biological Resources and Treee) to reduce the impact to trees and topeoil.

LAND USE - 5.1-lD Conflict Regarding Acceam to Riverfront

a. Sirnifipspt Immst The South Natomu Community Plan requirea that the project provide continuous public pedestrian accem to the river with connecting

patba to Garden Highway at interval.a of 800 feet or le8B - a condition of development approval for projects other than single family homes on sites one acre or larger. Path.a should be marked by signs reading "Public As:C#tJa to River."

The South Satomaa Community Plan alao regulates intensity of development according to accepted stand.arcle for vehicle trip generation and parking

4 CALENDAR PAGE 110

I .

. ; b.

generation by land WICS propoeed. a!locating to each parcel a share of available capacity proportio:a.a.l to its frontage on Garden Highway .

Fac:r., ip Supnort gf findine" The significant effect liat.ed above will be reduced to a less than significant level with the following mitigation measures:

L To conform to the public pedestrian accms policy, the project should designate and dedicate a public pedestrian access-way which should be marked by signs reading "Public Access to River" or the applicant shall contribute to the City or a trust agency designated by the City an amount equal to the costs of dedicating and developing public access at a comparable location along the Sacramento River. The contribution shall be based in the independently verified cost.II of acquiring fee title or easements from the Garden Highway to the river and the costs of developing such access including improvements for safe walking, viewing, parking and signage.

To conform to the transportation and parking policy the City should require an aggressive Transportation Management Plan or require that the Pt.JD guidelines provide for parking management strategie::: to avoid parking overflow onto the shoulder of Garden Highway.

5. LAND t:SE - 5.l-2B Parking Standards

a. Sirnifisar;• Im;iact: The proposed project is located in an area of limited off­street parking, any parking overflow could result in a potentially significant effect.

b. Fa,cr., jn Support of Fjpdjpi' The significant effect listed above will be reduced to a less than significant level with the following mitigation measures:

L The applicant should monitor the use of the project's parking to ensure

that adequat.e sP-ce is provided for peak use. Related to this. to the extent po.ssible, the applicant should employ all reasonable

Transportation Management Plan strategies to reduce office parking demand.

6. LAND USE - 5.l-3B Land Use Conflict with the Planned Intent of the Site

a. Sicifjs,ant Impact The development associated with the Proposed Project wocid contrast with the existing and planned land use of the project site. The .-thetic character of the property would be altered by removing natural vegwtation, grading and filling the site. constructing the project and paving the driveway and parking area. Development along the river also impacts river habitats. the flood corridors, viewsheds and the balance of open space. Development of the Proposed Project will create significant physical change and land u.se impact in the areas of air quality. transportation. hydrology. water

quality, biology and aesthetics. These significant impacts ai·e discussed in the

respective chapters that deal with the physical impacts (e.g., Transportation. and

5

CALENDAR PAGE 111

MINUTE PAGE OC0591 9 .. . OV"t l '~J~ ~. ~ ';"'; ,,. ; ~,

.... •"'' -

~etics).

b. &sur ip Snpmrt gf Fjpdjp~ The significant effect liated above will be reduced to al- than significant level with the following mitigation meaaurec

L Comprehensive implementation of mitigation m-..uree preecribed to

reduce air quality. tranaportation. hydrology. water quality, biology and aesthetic& (Pleaae eee theae 1eepective -.:tiona).

7. LAND USE - 5.1-3C Conflict with Bannon Island Nature Study Area

a. Sjmifjant Imms:t; Development of the Pr-opcwd Project would incl"'lllUle the inten&ty of land uae immediately adjacent to the Ban.non Iala.nd Nature Study Area. Thia impact ia considered significant.

b. F•ST.S in Suppgrt gf Fjpdjp~ The significant effect listed above will be reduced to a lea than significant level with the following mitigation m~

A buffer mne between the projece site and the Nature Study Area. should be incorporated ini:o the design of the Propoeed Project. Thia buffer zone shall include the following and shall be con&stent with the requirement.a of Biology Mitigation Measure 5.l~l.;

L A vegetative or fenced barrier to reduce intrullicm and ecreen the area from c:iiarupti.ve uaes;

2. A tree and native vegetation planting at.rip at least 30 feet wide to be established and maintained between the euterly project site boundary and the barrier. The trees sball be con.siatent with the native species or related gei:iera appropriate to riparian and flood plain aree.s of the Sacramento Valley.

a RECREATION - 6.2-1 Impact to Emting Boating

a. Sjp>ifir.ent Imms:t An. additional marina within River Reach 4 v.ill have minimaJ additional impact on boat and jet akiera due to current speed restricticma cau.ed by exiating marina& With boat fishing being the mOR popular ~ of recreational activity throughout the study area. in~ CDDflic:t8 may result from additional boating. Conflic:ta could result from wakes cauw:l by irrellponaible or uneducated boaters near ?18hing bot spot.a during the

fiebins ••80D. In addition to wakea. noiae, and pneral crowding will alao detract from this recreational pleaaure. Thia ia c:ionaidered a 8i.gnif icant impact.

b. Fam in Su'RPRrt of Fjpdinl' Thia impaet ia no longer applicable bec:aWle the

projecc no longer includ• a marina and related project generated boating

impmct&

9. RECREATION - 6.2-2 Impact to Emting Shore Baaed Recreation

6 CALENDAR PAGE

I ./

.!' . .-.i

I

L Sjsnjfis;ept Imp•st The~ in boating activity will inc:rea.e the noiae. wake action. and general congmtion which contributee to the aignificant impact.a of adjacent recreational are.a. Particularly vulnerable to the inc:J"ell.9eCl boat ac:t:ivity ia the fishing and pamive rec:r-tional activity that c:urrenuy ezifts between Diac:overy Park and Miller Park. The construction impact and uae impmct of the on-ebore facilities on current BINSA recreation i.a a potentially signific:a.nt impact.

b. Facu in Sn~i:pgrt of F)ndipg Thia impact is no longer applicable beca:uae the project no longer includes a marina and related project generated boating impact&

10. RECREATION - 5.2-3 Cumulative Becreation

a. Sjniific;ant Imp•s;; The Propoaed Projec: would result in an increaae of boat slipa within the River which would inr:rea.M boating traffic in the River. Incre&INICi boat activities such aa skiing that would result from the propoeed marina could present additional conflict.a with fiaher=en during the fishing .-..on at the mouth of the American River. Theae conflicta would contribute to the significant impact identified above. Therefore. a significant impa~ would result for the Propoeed Project.

b. Fam in SµpPOrt of Fjpdjpg Thia impact is no longer applicable becauae the project no longer includes a marina and related project generated boating impacts.

11. RECREATION - 5.2-6 Construction Impac:t.s

a. Sill)ifinz;it Impas;t Short-term construction c:listurbance and noiae may result in impact.8 to ex:ist:ing wildlife in the BINSA reirultin&' in temporary or permanent relocation. Therefore, the Propoeed Projec: may be inconsistent with the goale in the American River Parkway Plan; therefore. a significant impact would result.

b. Faett in Supmrt of Fipdjpg The significant effect liated above will be reduced to a 1- than significant level with the following mitigation measurec

L Implement the mitigation meaaures for Biological Reeourcee.

l2. RECREATION - 5.2-7 Conformity with the 198S American River Parkway Plan

13.

a. Sjgpifissnt tmaast The Propoeed Project eould result in increa.eed boat traffic and intrwlicm on the Bannon r.Jand Nature Study an&

b. F@CU jn Support of Fi.ndjnl' The Propoeed Project no longer includes a marina and thus will no longer direc:tly inc:re&90 boating traffic in the River.

RECREATION - 5.2-8.-9 Conformity with the 1975 Sacramento River Parkway

7

CALENDAR PAGE

92._. ~•I" r.•' •• J ! ~ 7- !.

113

Plan • Recreation Policies

L Sii'DifiMnt Impnc;t The Propoeed Project could ~tin increaaed boat traffic and intrusion oc. the Bannon Island Nature Study an&

b. Fasq jn Supmc gf Findjpg The Prapaaed Project c.o longer includes a marina and thua will no longer direct:ly increaae boating traffic in the River.

14. RECREATION - 6..2-10 Conformity with the 1977 Bikeway Master Plan

a. SiGifiramt Impas;t The Propoeed Project aite dOM include :property on both the 80Uthern and nonhern side of Garden Highway. Sonhbound and .-,uthbound on...creet right-of-way ia required on the project site to implement the 1977 Bikeway Master Plan. The right-of-way conm.ta of a f'ive foot right.-of-way for the paved bike lane .. well - a minimum two foot shoulder off the bi.kelane. There appears to be sufficient aetback area between Garden Highway and the propo.ed feru:e. However. the on-ctreet bilceway waa not planned .. part of this front setback area and the fence may create aaff!lf:.y iasuea with bikers. The exim.ng site plan. combined with the existinar on-at:reet parking conflic:ta results in a significant impact.

b. Fam in Suppgct gf Fjpdjni' The significant effect. liat.ed above will be reduced to a leM than significant level with the following mitigation measures

L The applicant for tbePrapo8ed Project shall coordinate with the City's Transportation Division to &MUre t.bat aufficient right.-of way and setback area on both the 80Uthern and northern aide of Garden Highway ia reeerved for an on-street bikeway.

15. RECREATION - 5.2-11 Conformity with the South Natoma.a Community Plan Bicycle Policies

a. Sjgpifieant Impast Provide a system of on-street bicycle routee for bicycle commutera and at:tractive off-st:reet bicycle pat.b.9 for recreational bicyclists. Provide on-«reet signed and atriped bikewaya on ~gnated major street&

b. Facts in Sµppgrt of Findin&" The .significant effect listed above will be reduced to a lem tbaA mignificant level with the following mitigation mea.surec

1. The applicant for the Prapoeed Project ehall coordinate with the City's Transportation Division to &m\lre that irufficient .. th&ck area on both the mutheni and northern mde of Garden Highway u. re.erved for an

bikewa7 or bicycle path.

16. TRANSPORTATION - ~3 Parking Impacta

L Siplifjc;ant Impact The potential for flooding of the propaeed off-«treet parking facilitia provided by the project would result in • mgnif'icant impact. The

a CALENDAR PAGE 114

garage of Building B iB designed for flood flow through in accordance with the applicable codes. The lower level..-floor c:ompra. 41 parking .sp&C89 that could be flooded.

b. Ftgct:r ip Supnort pf Fjndini' The significant effect listed above will be reduced

to a lem than significant level with the following mitigation measures:

L The installation of No Parking Signa along the project frontage would mitigate potential impacta to on-street parlcing in the st:udy area.

2. Require major employers of the project site to include in their employer Tl'dP, emergency flood condition procedure8 to reduce employ- parking on the site.

17. TRANSPORTATION - 5.5-7 Bicycle Impac:t.s

a. SiGifisant Impa.c;t Bicycle lanes do not currently e:iti.st along Garden Highway. Thia ia considered to be a significant impact.

b. Fasts in Suppgn; of Fjpdini' The significant effect Wrt.ed above will be reduced to a less than .significant level with the following mitigation measures:

L The project spon80r for the Propoeed Project 8ball coordinate with the City's Tramrportation Division to amure that sufficient setback and right-of-way area on both the eouthern and northern side of Garden Highway is reserved for an on-.treet bikeway.

18. TRANSPORTATION - 5.5-8 Marina Circu.J.ation Impac:te

a. Sicifieant Impost The Propoeed Project no longer includee a marina and thus will no longer directly in~ boating traffic in the River.

b. Fast:.s in Suppgct gf Fjpdjpg The significant effect listed above will be reduced

to a le. than significant level with the following mitigation measurec

l. The Propoeed Project no longer includes a marina which would add new boats to the Sacramento River.

19. NOISE • 5.6-1 Noi8e from Garden Highway

a. Sigpjfjs;apt !mp•u;t; The average daily traffic coille produced by Garden Highway under future conditions will be 66 dB. Lc1a at the nearest building facadM,, which f alla mto the Conditionally Acceptable range. Thia indicate. that noW. abatement demgn features must be included into the office building design&

Garden Highway traffic noiae represents a potentially significant adverse

impact upon future users of the planned office and commercial space. This

9

CALENDAR PAGE 115

9 tit~ PAGS .-·,- 000

potential impact can be mitigated through the u.e of readily available mitigation measures.

b. Fasy in SnpPOrt of F;pdipg The significant effect liated above will be reduced

to a 1- than aignificant level with the following mitigation meaaurec

1. It .U. recommended that all windowe and glaM doors with a view toward

Garden Highway or the Sacramento River be aound rated to a Sound Tran'"l'iMion Clam (STC) rating of not lw than Z1. Thia rat:ing ia typically achieved by dual glazed window• and doors which have adequate eeala. and will ensure that remden.te will be able to maintain interior noiae levels below 46 dB. Lw when. windows and doon are claeed. in even them°" noi.ee impacted room& Thia reduce9 the potential boat and highway traffic noiae impacts on buildings to leae-than-eig::U:ficant levels.

20. NOISE - 5..&3 River Traffic Noiae

a. SiGifisapt Impact Existing and proje.:ted noiae levela from the river (boau and jet.ski) and the Gard.en Highway will result in a potentially significant advene impact particularly on. high uee summer day&

b. Fac;t3 in SppPPn; pf Fjndjpg The eignificant effect lifted above will be redi.:ced

to al_. tha.c. significant level with the following mitigation. mea.suJ:'eC

L It ie recommended that all windows and gla.- doors with a view toward Garden Highway or the Sacramento River be eouud rated to a Sound Trttn'"l'iMion Clw (STC) rating of not lem than Z1. Thia rating is typically ac:bieved by dual glazed windowa and doors which have adequate seals. and will emrure that residents will be able to maintain interior noise levela below 46 dB. Lw when windows and doors are clceeci, in even the most noiae impacted rooma. This reducee the potential boat and highway traffic noiae impacts on buildings to l_.than-significant level&.

2L NOISE • 5..6-6 Ccmatruction. Noiae

a. Signjfis;ant Impast; On.cte generation of noiae will be significant during the period of construction for the propmed project and all alternatives. This is a mgmficant avoidable, temporary adverse impact on adjacent land u.-.

b. Fast,n in Suppgrt pf flndinc The significant effect liat.ed above will:.~ reduced to a 1- than significant level with the following mitigation mell8W"lllC

L Construction activities should be limited to the period 7:00 a.m. to 7:00

p.m.. Monday through Friday. and 8:00 &:n. to &00 p.m. on. Saturday a.n.d Sunday, aa a maximum, to limit noiae di8turbanee of nearby ~to less eeositive period& This applies particularly to con.scruction equipment

10

CALENDAR PAGE 116

I

2.

powered by internal combustion engines. or other noiae genera ting equipment that would disturb 8\lrr'Ounciing residential area&

All noiae-generating c:onatruction equipment muat be equipped with factory installed or equivalent silenc:era. maintained in good working

order.

22. SOILS & GEXJLOGY - 5.8-1 Site Grading

a. Sjgnjfjsant Impaet Under the propa8ed grading plan. project related c:onatruction activities requiring cut and fill will result in the alteration of .site topography. Excavation or f'"'ill in vegetated area. will ~limi:c.ate vegetation and render the rmulting surface9 INllCleptible to erasion. Excavation.a planned for Buildings A and B may be w::a.stable and will require temporary stabilization and/or laying back of the cut elope& Theae are coruridered aig"IU.ficant itnpact&

b. F@st.&r in SJ,]pport of Fjndjpg The significant effect liat.ed above will be reduced to a lem than .significant level with the following mitigation meaaurec

L Aa required by the Reclamation Board of the St.ate Resourcee Agency. all project grading act.:iviti• should follow the guidelinea eet forth in the Reclamation Board'a Standards for Enc:roach.:nents.

2. The site should be graded such that the new topography makes a .smooth tranaition to the exi.sting adjacent topography. All grading activities should be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC).

Chapter 70.

3. Grading techniques that control excwive run~ff and eroaion during construction should be implemented.

Temporary excavations for baeementa and retaining walls should be properly braced or sloped back during construction to in.sure worker -.fety.

The applicant should be required to monitor the site during grading for any evidence of eoil cont-amin•tion. If contaminated mi.la are encountered, the applicant should be required to remediate such contamination prior to proceeding with construction.

Prior to submitting an application for an Encroachment Permit to the State Reclamation Boazd. the applicant should be required to obtain

ezcepticma to Reclamation District 1000'• Special Encroachment Standards criteria that are not explicitly •tisfied by the propoeeci project.

23. SOJLS &; GEX>LOGY - 5.8-2 Settlement/Slope Instability

11 CALENDAR PAGE 117

~E PAGE

a. Sjrnifirnnt Imp•S1: The propc.ed riverbank prot.ection system ia no~ expected to have any long-term adverae impac:te on the stability of the rivert.nk or the levee system. Minor slope failures along the riverbank could result from alteration of the toe of the slope during inatallation of the slope proUlction system; however • .such failures would be remeciiated during conatruction of the slope protection system and would not have any lasting effects.

A slight potential exist.a for slope failures occurring along steeper portions of the Sacramento riverbank due to pile-driving activiti• for the main .uuc~

Such failures are most likely during the winter montb8 when riverbank 80ile tend to be the we1:teat. As diacumed below, the potential for auch fail urea can be reduced by pre-drilling pile hol- prior to pile driving.

b. Fam in Supmrt pf Fjpdimr The significant effect lined above will be reduced to a lem than significant level with the following mitigation measures:

L As recommended in the preliminary geotechnical report by Wallace-Kuhl & Amoe.. Inc. (1990), Pil...upported foundatio:c.s will be utilized for the main struct:ures to control excessive aet:tlement and minimize liquefaction hazard. Piles will be founded in de!l.919 material below the depth of liquefaction-prone soW.. Ba.ed on available subsurface data (Wallace-Kuhl & .ASllociaUiS. Inc.. 1990), the depth to denae aoila beneath the land portion of the site is estimated to be approximately 55 to 70 feet.

2. The contractor should take measures to mjnjmjze the potential for slope failures along the riverbank ca.uaed by 80il vibration and/or diaplacement resulting from adjacent pile-driving activities. One such measure involves pre-drilling pile holes prior to pile driving, resulting in a lower volume of displaced soil. and allowing pil• to penetrate more easily.

a 'l'emporary e.xcavatio:a.s for ba8erllents and ret;ajning walls should be properly braced or sloped back during conatruction to in.sure worker safety and minimi2'e the potential for slope failure&

Prior to imu.ance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit a final pot.ec:hnical investigation to the City Deparrment of Public Work& This investigation should include site-specific engineering ana.ly8e:S of riverbe:ak stability under eeiamic and rapid~wdown conditions. In addition. the potential for liquefaction/lateral spreading should a.lao be evaluated.

IL aite-epecific engineering analyw indicate that propoeed grading ac:tiviti• (~ the addition of fill adjacent to existing slopes) would adveraely affect the stability of either the Garden Highway levee or the riverbank slope south of the main struc:turea. various mea.sure9 should be taken to mitigate thia impact. Such meuuree include sloping it back. reinforcing it with geofabric, and m.inimizing adjacent fill tb.icknemes

12

CALENDAR PAGE 118

AGE,;;:.

. ,-

I ;' r

at the top of the slope. and. reiniorcing the alope with geofabric.

Potential impact.a ~ frmn aloping back the riverbank or reinforcing it with geofabric include alteration of site topography. loaa of existing trees along the riverbanJc. temporary lo.- of other riparian vegetation (emu.ming the riverbank would be replanted with riparian speci•>. and a temporary inc.rell99 in stormwater runoff and en.ion due to eoil-clisturbing activiti-. Minimizing fill thickneeeea adjacent the levee or riverbank would not remult in any additional impacu beyond those discu.ued in Sectiona1 6.8-1 (Site Grading) and .5.S..3 (Soil Erosion/Inc:reaBed Runoff) . .Aam.cu...d in theee8eetiona. known UnP9cts are mit:ip.table to insignificance. providing that all mitigation is employed including theae related to the ~ration of disturbed area&

However. in the event the final aoU. engineering analysis revea.la ~t substantial alternation of the site. not analyzed. in t.hia EIR would occur. further environmental analysis will be required-

24. SOII.S &: GEX>LOGY - 5.8-3 Soil Eroaion/Incr-...d Runoff

a. Sjgpifisapt bpast Development of the ate would not effect the on-going :ia"tUral erosion of the riverbank presendy occurring at the site (JBS Energy, Inc.. 1991). Increased soil erosion would reault from project conatruc'tion ac:tivities, and increased stormwater runoff would result from an inc:re&11e in the area covered by impervioua surface& Such c:hangea in site d.raina.ge characteristics are not expected to advenely affect. either the riverbank or the levee aystem north of Buildings A and B.

b. Fasts in Support of Findine= The significant effect. liated above will be reduced

to a less than significant level with the following mitigation measures:

L The existing riverbank: and adjacent slope should be protected from future ermion resulting from river turbulence and waves amoc:iated with bo.t traffic. The applicant bas propaeed a gabion and alope blanket protection system. Thia approach would greatly minjmj:ze the potential

for future ermion of this slope.

2. The propmed slope protection aystem should be coD.StrUcted to provide a

smooth transition with exiati..ng .lopes upstream and downstream. of the propoeed project.

3. The site shall be graded such that the new topography makes a smooth tran.sition to exiating adjacent topography. All grading ac:ti~ti• shall be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Chapter 70.

4. Grading techniques which control excessive runoff and erosion during

construction shall be implemented.

5. Dust and eoil el'Oll'ion control meaauree should be implemented during the

13

CALENDAR PAGE 119

M:t:NUTE PAGE 000599 ,,. ,_ ,..,_ -. ·····

constrUction pha.e of the p~~ project. Th- m-..ure. are intended to minimize eoil erosion and fugitive duat emi&sion& Suggefted mea.sures include:

a. watering expoaed eoila; b. covering expo89Ci eoila with straw or other materials; c. adopting mea.sures to prevent construction vehicles from tracking

mud onto adjacent roadwa~ d. covering trucks containing looee and dry eoil; e. providing interim c:irainage rnelUIU.?'9ll during the construction

period.

6. In non-pavement and riverbank areea. any vegetation covered or removed during con.struct:ion of the propcwed pro~ (in.eluding the propoeed slope protection systeni) should be replanted following construction. The applicant shall hire a qualified biologiat to prepare a restoration and replanting for the areas located to the immediate south. ~and w~ of the building fooqn"int.s and extending to the river. This area shall be restored in accordance with mitigation measure 5..10-1. The balance of the site shall be planted in :native, drought reisi.atant plants approved by tb.e Reclamation Bo.rd..

7. Storm drains. catch basins, and gutters should be designed to

accommodate inCl'elL9eCi concentrat.ed ruzloff u-ociated with construction of the propoeed project. Storm drain di.rharge outleta should be designed to preven~ backup aseociated with inundation by flood waters.

8. A silt curtain should be utilized in conjunction with construction of the gabion slope protection system in order to mjnjmjze increaaed in

turbidity resulting from coD.BtrW:t:ion activities below the low water level

9. Prior to imuance of a grading permit, the applicant should be required to submit a final geotechn.ical inveat:igati.on to the City Departmen~ of Public Work& Potential erosion problems resulting from obstructi.ona to flow due to dock support structurelB should be acidrea9ed along with specific surface drainage structure desigxia (ie. storm drain.s, catch basins, gutters, etc.).

25. son.s 6 GEOLOGY - 5..8-4 Faulting & Seismicity

a. Sisnjfic:ent Ir~ Damage due to st2'm1g ground sb•king can be greatly reduced i:I proper design and conatruction meuures are employed, as diacumed below. Although the potential for liquefaction related d•mage to propoeed pil...upported structures ia mjnjmal, additional site-cpecific studies should be performed in order to better ueem the potential for liquefaction related damage

(including lateral spreading). If such studies reveal that liquefaction or lateral spreading could occur at the site, varioua meaaures should be employed c ..

14

CALENDAR PAGE 120

MINUTE PAGE

-1 ~ c:liecu.ed below) to mitigate the po_!antial for liquefaction-related damage.

The exi.sting riverbank could alao experience local inatability (ravelling, crack:ing. slumping, etc.) during a large earthquake. Pile foundation. could be

subjected to lateral forces in the event of such a failure. In any caee. •imnic bazard,9 are inherent to the region and do nae poee any greater threat to the propoeed project than to other similar riverb.nk sites in the area.

b. Fac;r., in Suppgrt of Findjng The significant effect listed above will be reduced

to a lem cllan significant level with the following mitigation measures:

L .Aarecommended in the preliminary geo~bnical report by Wallace-Kuhl &: Aaaoc.. Inc. (1990), Pil...upported foundation. will be utili:ed for the main atruc:uree to control excemive 1tet:tlement and reduce liquefaction hazard. Piles will be founded in d~ material below the depth of liquefaction-prone aoil& Baeecl on available subsurface daUl (Wallace-Kuhl &: A.uociatee. Inc., 1990), the depth to denae 110U. beneath the land portion of the site ia estimated to be approximately l55 to 70

feet.

2. In order to minimize •imnic haz.arda. building• and structures at the propoeed project site shall be designed to meet the requirements of the 1991 Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 3.

3. Prior to issuance of a.grading permit. the applicant mould submit a final geotechnical investigation to the City Department of Public Works. Tb.is investigation should include site-trpecific alope atability (including eeismic stability) and liquefaction analyees.

I£ site-cpec:i{ic engineering analy- confirm the potential for liquefac. ~on and/or lateral spreading at the subject site. IDea.9Urm should be taken to minimize fire ba.zarda IUl80Ciated with the rupturing of gaa lin• aa a result of eoil liquefaction or lateral spreading. Such measures include providing automatic abut-off valves on all gaa lines. and reatricting gas lines to the land aid• of all buildings.

"If site-«pecific engineering analyw confirm the potential for liquefaction/lateral spreading or seismic slope instability, building f oundationa should be designed to resist liquefaction and/or seismic slope instability effecta. which may include lateral forces on pile foundation.a. Alternatively, deep dynamic compaction of 11Ubsurf ace eoU.. relocation of the main structures further from the top of the riverbank. or sloping b.ck the exiating riverbanlc could al80 be employed to reduce the potential for liquefaction-related and wmnic slope failure damage.

26. WATER QUALl'I'Y. HYDROLOGY, DRAINAGE - 5.9-1 Construction

a. SiGifk,nnt ImP•st Construction of the propaeed slope protection system of

15

CALENDAR PAGE 121

gabio:na and the accompanying ~ma~ could have a abort term impact on water quality. Thia .ia primarily due to the underwater construction of a toe

needed to stabili:e the slope prot.ec:tion. and the e:rpmure of diaturbed eoils to erosive factors.

b. Fasf.3 in Sµppgrt gf Fjndinl' The significant effect liated above will be reduced to al ... than significant level with the following mitigation metW\ll:'el!C

L Implement mitigation 5.~3(1~

2:T. WATER QUALITY. HYDROLOGY. DRAINAGE -6.9-3 Marine Sewage Diapaeal

a. Sjgpjfis;amt I,mp•st The Propaeeci Project no longer includ- a marina and thu.s will no longer directly increaae boating traffic and the related marine sewage impact in the River.

b. Fast.'! in Sµppgrt pf Fjpdinl' The significant eff-=t liated above will be reduced to a less than significant level with the following mitigation measures

L The Propoeed Project no longer includea a marina which would add new boata to the Sacramento River and ca~ a marine eewage impact. No mitigalion ia required.

28. WATER QUALITY. HYDROLOGY. DRAINAGE - 5.9-4 Fueling Activities

a. Sjmjfieant I::ppast The Propoeed Project no longer includ• a marina and thu.s will no longer directly .inc:rell8e boating traffic and the boat fueling impact in the River.

b. Fade1 in Suppgrt gf Findinl' The significant effet:t listed above will be reduced to a lem than sign.i:f'icant level with the following mitigation me:&BW"ell:

L The Propoeed Project no longer .includes a marina which would add new boata to the Sacramento River and c:aUMt an impact related to boat fuels. No mitip.tion ill required.

29. WATER QUALITY. HYDROLOGY. DR.Anil'AGE - 5.9-5 Litter

a. Sirniffoapt Immst The propaaed project ia one of the more intensive WleS of the project site. and therefore can be expected to generate one of the higher impac:ta frcan litter. The office buildinp will ezpo99 the ate to many people and becauae tbme u.era are temporary. they may be more apt to litter than would be property owner& 'If proper mitigation m...uree are implemented and maintained. the impact of litter resulting from thia uae can be leeeened to a less than significant level

b. Facr., in Sunpgr: of Fjndjn~ The significant effet:t listed above will be reduced to a lem than sign.i:f'ic:ant level with the following mitigation measures:

16

CALENDAR PAGE 122

-; ,

; /

L Tmb receptacles sufficient to handle war..e generated by uaenr of the project shall be placed in convenient locations in order to facili't&Ut their

uae.

2. The project owner shall police the project site at leeat daily for litter to

enaure no litter enters the river inadvertently.

30. WATER QUALITY. HYDROLOGY. DRAINAGE - 5.9-11 Public Safety

a. Sivnifisnnt Impac;:t The propoeed project and alternatives are located in an area of the City determined to have leas than 100.year flood protection resulting in exposure to flood hazard& Implementation of the project will therefore.. expcee people and/or property to the risk of injury and damage in the event of a 100.

year or lemer flood. Thme risb are considered significant adverse impacts under

CEQA.

b. Fasts in Suppqn gf i:"jpdjpg The significant effect listed above will be reduced to a lem t.han signi:{icant level with the following mitigation measurec

For the Propoeed Project. the applicable proviaiona of the Sacramento City Code permit development on the project site provided applicants. by agreement with the City. wume the riak of all flood-related d•m•ge to any permit'ted new construction. agree to :notify subeequent purcbaaere of the flood riak. and ensure that any :new co!laa"\lctio:n complies with City-impoeed design restrictionl! aimed at reducing the riak of flood-related property damage and personal injury.

3L WATER QUALITY. HYDROLOGY. DRAINAGE - 5.9-12 Parking Lot Runoff

a. Simjfis;ant Ig,nast The Propowi Project provides for 214 parking spaces. Oil.

gr... and other tozine can be washed into the river during precipitation events or by irrigation rw:20ff. and contribute to the pollutant load of the river.

b. Fam in Snppgrt gf Findinv The significant effect listed above will be reduced to a lem than signi:f'icant level with the following mitigation measures

L The project owner shall implement a parking lot cleaning and maintenance program designed to minimized the introduction of toxic material.a inU> the Sacramento River from :i:-rking lot runoff. The program ab.all include at least weekly mechanical cleaning of all paved are.a and per.king lots. including encloeed area& The owner shall also m.truct maintellance peraor:mel to promptly clean any oil/greaae or other toxic depoata di8covered on the premi-&

2. Prior to iauanc:e of building permits. the project owner shall incorporate into the drainage plan inlet catch besina containing greaaelaediment

trap& Theee traps shall incorporate a polypropylene pillow or equivalent for greaae collection. and sball be in.stalled in sufficient number and

17

CALENDAR PAGE 123 opQ§03

appropriate locationa in par_Jcing lota. - well .. any other imperviou. area expected to collect toZin& The demign of the trap. and drainage system muse be approved by the City, and muat include a maintenance program designed to keep the traps clean. and to properly d.iapa.e of the material collected.

32. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - 5.10-1 Riparian Habitat\Riverbank Vegetation

a. Sjgpjficant fmpa<;t Under the propoaed site plan. 0.06 ac:ree of mixed riparian

habitat would be permanently loet along the west.em end of the project site. Thia small iaolated stand of riparian habitat ia not con&dered high value habitat and lam of this area would not be significant. The cw:nulative impact of this d-=--- in riparian habitat along the river would. however, be considered significant. Implementation of the project may al8o result in advene impacts to an additional 0.3 acres of high value riparian habitat located on the eastern edge of the project site adjacent to the Natomas Ea.st Main Drainage Canal. Thia ia con&dered a significant impact.

b. Faspr in Suppgr: gf Fjpdjpi' The aign.ific:an.t effect list.ed above will be reduced to a less than significant level with the following mitigation meaaures:

L Limit all construction, excavation, fill placement and equipment movement out.Bide a 30-f oot •tback from the outermost edge of the riparian habitat adjacent to the Nato:m.a. Ea8t Main Drainage Canal aa shown on the site development plan. Prohibit all permanent structurea and non-native landacaping in the designated riparian restoration area. on the eastern portion of the site. The designed riparian restoration site includes all areaa to the muth and eut of the footprint of building A. The 30-foot buffer shall alao apply to the remainder of the project site, with the exception of the a.rem where the utility line placement are propolled along the western edge of the western end of the site. The buff er zone aball be protected by the fallowing specific means

L The buff' er :z:one ahall be flagged and/or fenced prior to initiation

of any conatruction activiti• on the aite.

b. Strue1:Cre shall be located outside the drip Ii.nee of all exiating mature trees tbat will be preeerved.

c. No vegetation removal or trimming shall occur in the buff er zone other than for placement of utility lin• and riverbank protection during project conatruction. In the event tree limbing or removal

w det.ermined to be nei;; ry for afety reaeona. the work shall be conducted with atandarda adopted by the Western Chapter of International Society of Arborist (ISA). The work shall be conduc:t.ed by an ISA certified arborist.

cL Following construction, riparian vegetation within the buffer

18

CALENDAR PAGE 124

I F

I '

./ I

e.

zone shall not be mowed and/or weeded or subject to other types

of unnatural management.

Vegetation removed as provided for in item d will be replaced on a one-to-one basis. Species used for re-vegetation for as deec:ribed above shall be native California species typical of riparian habitat in the project vicinity.

2. Riverbank protection placement shall be limited to the bank of the Sacrament.a River and shall not extend into the main channel of the Natomas East Ma.in Drainage Canal

3. T?"ee removal activities shall be conducted in accordance with Mitigation Measure 5.10-2 and shall include provisions for monitoring the condition of trees ret:ained along the waterfront where bank protection will be placed and for replacement of the ~me species as that lost.

Develop an on-site or off:rite habitat enhancement/restoration plan to replace the 0.06 acres of riparian habitat lost as a result of the project. The plan shall be developed by a qualified restoration biolo~ and shall include z eplanti:z1g of ::aci o e piazzt specie=s: 'Phe e1xba:z1cewe11t plan shall fwus 011 che eastez - side of :he pz ujecc site hz the v icixri cy of the ?<iatumas Ease Ma:L:z DzaL:mge Cax:mi.'l'Le plmz shall be submitted to the City of 3acrament.o for apprnval prior to issuance of a building perm.it and Jor coordination with State Lands Commjssion. and State Department of Fish and Game (regarding special status species habitats). fez appzuval pxiox w issuance of a buildiz1g pezwit:: !Dtjmat.e Cjty

Coµpei1 apprnyal shall be by City Gouneil The plan must also be part of

the development of the site and the essential planting and landscaping components of the rest;aration completed prior to issuance of a notice of

occupancy. Anv gn-:it:e mirl garlon shall include ai:l ax eas wit! tiu the sa ~an adequate buffer area parallel and adjas;ent to the drainap e.anel as weH as all mm to the south and east of the foutp1it1t of Duildh1g .~ The restoration plan for this area shall include planting of both native riparian understory and canopy species in accordance with the approved restoration plan. To the extent feasible. the understory density should incre.."Ule in areas adjacent to the Bannon Island Nature Preserve in order to provide a deep vegetative buffer and protective habitat. The plan CZCIT

max. incorporate elements of the Swainson's hawk nesting habitat restoration as required in Mitigation Measure 5.10-3 and the tree replanting plan as required in Mitigation Measure 5.10-2.

The areas included in the replanting plan shall be maintained as in perpetUity and protected from future development/ alteration by the

pmjcd; applica,nt, 'Phe 1est01atiu11 piwx thezef01e, wast designabe a

1espuusible stewazd:ship p1ug1aw fox the 1esto1atiua site ix1clading the such methocl:s a:s deciicatiuzz of the J:m1J lX> an appzuved wuset vatio11

agmicJ with a tz ast {and pzuviJed b) the appiicaz1t to e1mme adequate fandii1g fox 011=going :uaiz1tena1xce is appxuoed

19

CALENDAR PAGE 125

It will be the project proponent.a r•pon.ibility to remove tr-..h dumped in any on-site enhancement area.

6. Implement the monitoring requirement.a specified in Mitigation Meaaure 5.1~2.

7. Restoration shall be conciucted aa part of the development agreement with the City of Sacramento and .shall include a monitoring program to en.sure the succ- of the habitat reftaration plan.

33. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - 5.10-2 Tree Reeourcea

a. Sicniffoamt ImP•st Adverse impact.a to elCisting tree reeources. including valley oaks. will result from construction of the project. Thia ia con.sidered a significant impact.

b. Fac;t:r ip Spp;x>rt of Findini' The significant effect listed above will be reduced to a less than .significant level with the following mitigation me:aaurec

L Trees not designated for reuioval and/or replanting shall be protected during con.st.ruction by the following mean&

a. Place temporary c:bain link fencing around individual trees or around protected pvv-. or lin• of tr-. The f e:c.cing aball be placed outside the drip line of the tree&

b. No trenching or sr-ling below the drip lines of tree8 .shall be allowed. Cuts or f"'Jll8 n~ tree. to be retained on the llite should not cau.se water to pond continuously around the trees. Compliance shall be det.ermined by the on site monitor.

2. Prepare and submit a detailed tree removal. protection pl.an and replanting plan to the City of Sacramento'• Environmental Services Division for review and approval for trees II 4, 6, 7, and 17 (Exhibit 3-12). The tree removal plan aball be developed by a qualified biologist or arboriat. Elements which shall be included in the tree removal plan include:

._ The number. location. species types. and si:e of all trees to be removed or relocated. The location for treM to be relocated/replanted shall be shown on a map in the plan. In ad~tion. the plan aball depict any tree. which will be retained. but which will have trenching or grading performed with their di-ipline. This will provide information for future monitoring of the health and condition of theae tree& Information in the existing arborist report can be incorporated into the plan.

Oak trees removed or damaged as a reault of

20

CALENDAR PAGE 126

GE OOQ~06 ·' . . ..

construction/operation of the project will require replacement of the -.me species u thome lost. Replanting •ball be performed to the extent pomrible along the eastern edge of the site with.in the 30-foot buffer. It ia anticipated that additional planting location(•) will be required to accommodate the number of trees

which may need to be planted. Any alternative loc:atio~ shall be apecified in the replanting plan and the uae of theee site for replanting shall be approved by the City.

b. Planting techniques, nee ry maintenance regime. success

criteria. and a monitoring plan.

c. Monitor in the spring and fall during the first year following transplanting, annually thereafter for 4 years and submit the report to the City Arboriat for each of the 5 yeara. If tb.e City Arborist determines. wi't.h.in the 5 year period, the trees are not in a minimum of a "marginal condition" per Exhibit 3-12 <DEIR>. the applicant ~ be liable to replace the trees at a monetary value deter:n~ned using the International Society of Arboriculture evaluation guidelines. The moneu..ry value deter:n.ined will be paid by the applicant to the City of Sacramento. to provide for riparian habitat restarat::i.on.

3. Implement the tree relocation/removal plan in accordance with requirements imposed by tb.e Ci~y of &. ::-amen.to.

Hire a certified <International Society of Arborist) arborist to monitor on site implementation of the plan. Monitoring shall include trees replaced. relocated. and preeerved on site. Monitoring ehall also include trees which have trenching conducted within their dripline. The monitor shall prepared periodic reports for submittal to the City. Replacement trees

must be healthy and determined to not be root-bound by the on site

monitor. The City of Sacramento shall be responsible for enforcement of the plan.

5. Moo.it.or in the 9Pring and fall during the first year following replanting. annually thereafter for 5 years. 'If the euccem crit.eria is not met. replace d-d or unhealthy individual trees and/or implement other remedial actiona or modification to maintenance as nee 1 ery to achieve specified mitigation.

8. Following coD8tnlction of the project. monitoring of the remaining trees. including relocated and replanted trees shall be conducted by a qualified arboriat hired by the project proponent. The monitoring will be required to ensure succem of the protection and replanting plan.

7. Mitigate the removal of the cluster of valley oaks (tree II 19. Exhibit 3-12) on an inch per inch basis of the diameters of tree II 19. The diameters

21 CALENDAR PAGE 127

E .• 11:·· OQ0.§,97

of the duat.er of valley oaka .total approximately 70 inche& The pro~ sponaor shall supply one inch or greater diameter trees (one inch tree x 70 inches of replaceir.cmt = 70 one inch replacement treea) aa replacement for the removal of tree II 19. The project sponaor ahall con~ the City of Sacramento's Environment.al Services Division to coordinate the planting of the trees.

34. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - 5.10-3 Swainson's Hawk

a. SiGifin1pt I;ppos;; Implementation of the propoeed project would result in the lo. of Swainson's hawk nesting habitat. Pursuant to CEQA. this is conAlidered a significant impact.

b. Fasts in Suppgrt gf Fjpdinv The significant effect listed above will be reduced

to a 1- than significant level with the following mitigation measurec

L Prepare a mitigation and operation plan for Swainaon'a hawk nesting habitat affected by the propmed project. The mitigation and operation plan shall be submitted to the DFG for review and approval prior to

project construction.

2. Implement .Mitigation Meaaure 5.10-2 to replace the tree resources lo.tt and/or in accordance with requirements impoeed by DFG for mitigation for loss of nesting habitat.

The mitigation plan which shall include replacement/replanting shall strive to incorporate replanting on the project site. near the riverfront or along the Natomu Eut Main Drainage Canal or shall identify suitable a suitable off-cite mitigation area near Swainson's hawk foraging habitat.

Implementation of tm. mitigatio:i m....ure will mitigate for the lam of available nesting habitat. however. thia habitat will be not iminec:liately available for nestins; u.ee until the trees attain a size suitable for nesting. Du.ring the ti.me period when thia area is not available for nesting, the restoration area will provide an important buffer zone between the site and available nesting habitat on Bannon I.land.

Monitor the succem of the habitat replacement for Swain.son's ha wk

annually for the first 5 years following establishment. and thereafter

every 3-5 years. Written monitoring reports shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and submitted to DFG. Take corrective ac:tiona to enaure succemful establiahment of Swainaon'.s hawk nesting habitat in pez petuity.

The DFG mitigation guidelines (1990) for Swainaon's hawk spec:ifi• that

no disturbance shall occur within a half-mile of an a ... tive nart between March 1 • August 1~ to avoid COD8tr'Ucti.on of other project related

22 CALENDAR PAGE

MINUTE PAGE : •f• .. : .... :

128 000608 -.

activities which may cauee_nest ab&ndonment or adven1e disturbance to ne8rby active nest during the b1 e ding W80n. Because of the proximity of the site to Bannon Island, conam.iction activities rnay c:liRurb the nesting pairs of Swainaon'.s hawk recorded on Bannon Ldand thia year_ The project site haa been identified .. an alternate nesting site for the pair. and the bawka may uae the project site during the year in which the project is constructed.

Prior to coc.scruction. hire a qualified biologiat to conduct a survey within a 1/2 mile radiwr of the site to determine the location of active nests.

6. Avoid co~ructionon the site during the breeding/nesting period of the Swainaon'.s hawk of March 1 through August 15 to avoid ~bance of

nesting pairs with.in a half-mile radiua of the site or;

7. During conauuction within the breeding/nesting seaaon. conduct inun.sive monitoring of active nescs (funded by the project proponent). The monitoring .shall be done by a DFG approved rapt.or biologiat.

35. BIOLOGICAL RESOu'"RCES - 5.10-4 Species of Concern

a. Sivoifirant: W,pas;t The giant garter snake. a species listed by DFG as threatened and is a federal candidate 2 for lial:ing. potentially uae the Natomaa Eag Main Drainage Can.al. Removal of .Wtable habitat anywhere that the snake is found can have .significant i.m.pac:i;a on the population. Such habitat removal is prohibited aa "incidental take'" under the California Encia..""l.gered Species Act. as is inadvertent injury to any individual of the epecies. Until a survey to determine whether the snake i8pre111 e:c.t is completed. suitable habitat on .site must. be amumed to support giant garter snakes.

b. Facq in Support of Findimr The significant effect liated above will be reduced to a lem than significant level with the following mitigation measure«

L Before construction is initiated. a .urvey will be conducted during the appropriate 8e&90n (preferably between April 15 and July 15) to

establish the presence or absence of gjant garter snakes on the project at&

2. Maintain the minimum 30-foot buffer u .specified in Mitigation Measure lS.l~L If a giant garter snake ia found on. site. a mitigation plan must be prepared and apprond by the City Environmental Coordinator in con..sultation with State FiAlh and Game prior to start of construction. The mitigation. plan may specify among other things. construction procedures and techniqu• to minimize disturbance to the habitat are of the .snake and restoration aetivitie11 (eee Mitigation. 5.l~l)

which would replace habitat l088e&

23

CALENDAR PAGE 129

PAGE; ,;, ·:· OQC>:.~P9

Conduc't a plant survey for_ California Hibiac:us. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist during the appropriate bloom -.eon. which is approximately July through September. but may be identifiable through November. If the species ia found on-cite. the following shall be conducted:

a. Flag and fence a.round the p.lan't if the plant U. located out.side the 30 foot buffer area.

b. Avoid diaalrbance of the plant during construction.

c. Avoid diaalrbance of the plant during maintenance of the site fallowing conatruction.

36. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES • 5.10-5 Fish Migration

a. SiK™firant Imp•st Placement of the riverbank protection and on-site conatruction activities may increaMI turbidity in the Sacramento River during fish migration periods and result in adverse impact.s to the sta~listed endangered. and federally-listed threatened winter-run chinook aalmon and other migratory and residen't fish spec:ieiL Thia is considered a significant impact.

b. Fasq ip Suppgrt of Fipdinl' The mgnificant effec:c li9t.ed above will be reduced to a 1- than significant level wi'th the following mitigation meaaures:

L Restrict grading activiti• to outside the 30-foot •thac.k in accordance with Mitigation M..aure 5.10-L

2. The contractor shall be required to provide eroeion control techniques in accordance with Mitigation Measure 5.~3 aa de9Cl'ibed in the Geology and Soila Chapter of thia report. including replanting of all diaturbed areea. I...rge ungraded portiona of the project site shall be stabilized to prevent .u.rface runoff. Contract specification for the project cont:rac:tors shall include nee ry provi.siona for implementation of this mitigation m...ure.

3. In-atream conatruction. fill placement. or riverbank protection installation aball be conducted during non-migratory and spawning perioda or;

During construction m.tall a Glt/turbidity barrier at the dowrurtream end of the ar-., upstream from the Natomaa Eaat Ma.in Drainage Canal to minimi• impac:ta on migrating fiah.

Implement eroeon control tecbniqu- to mjnimfae turbidity i.mpacta

du.ri:D.c riverbank protection placement. Such techniques may include. but not be limited to, placement of straw baila or silt barrier at the water

24

CALENDAR PAGE 130

MINUTE PAGE -- """-. . . ·' 00061.0 . . ..

line, hyciroH ding of e%pCl9lld surface. prior to the rainy .,..on. and

minimize clearing of shoreline vegetation to accommodate the riverbank protection.

37. BIOLOGICAL l~URCES - 5.lo-6 Aquatic Habitat

a. Sjgpjfiqmt Impas:t: The propo9Si project may result in degraded water quality from co~ruction. run-off and eroBion which may affect aquatic habitats.

b. Fam in Suppgrt pf Fjpdini' The significant effect l.ist".eci above will be reduced to a le811 than llignificant level with the following mitigation measures:

L Implement all the mitigation in Section 5.9'9 Water Quality

38. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - 5.1~7 Wetland Habitat

a. Sji'Difisant lnlpast It is expected that approximately 0.7 acres of juriadictional Waters of the t:.S and/or wetlands would be altered or lost aa a result of placement of riverbank protection. excavation and conft:Z'Uction of the drainage and water service lines. In addition. conatruction of the aiu and ueoc:iated riverbank protection facilities may require alteration and/or fill placement within L5 •er• wiWn the river. The project proponent will be required to apply to the Cori- of Engineers for a Section 404 permit for diacha.rge of fill if the total area fWed is one acre or greater of wetland or other waters of the U.S A Section 10 permit from the Corps of Engineers may aleo be required for alteration of a navigable waterway. A Strea.mbed Alteration Agreement must a.Leo be obtained from DFG for any work that will affect the Sacramento River or the Natomas East Main Drain.age Canal prior to commencement of work activities on the site.

b. Fasf.1 in Su;ipgrt gf Findjni' The significant effect listed above will be reduced to a leas than significant level with the follow.·.ng mitigation measures:

L If the 404 permit procem determines that the identified U.S. Waters are wet.land habitat &reaAI •he applicant shall comply with any COE requirement. including if nee ry the requirement to compen..te for unavoidable wetland fill by creating an equal or greater acreage of

wetland. of equal or greater habitat value than thoee that are to be filled.

39. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - 5.1~7 Light & Glare

a. Sicnificant Immst Inc:reued light and glare from the project site may advenel.y affect wildlife uae of the adjacent Bannau Island and Nature Study Area. Thia is considered a significant impact.

b. Fact;s in Suppox;; of F:indjni The significant effect listed above will be reduced

to a lem than tiiignif'ica.nt level with the following mitigation measures

25

CALENDAR PAGE 131

i

PAG~ ;··. :ooo-.1.

L Outdoor eec:urity lighting ab.all be directed away from the vicinity of Bannon Island.

2. Implement Mitigation Mes.sure 5.10-1 to ensure adequate vegetation is maintained between the project site and Bannon Island.

40. WATER SUPPLY - 5.11-2 Water Supply

a. SignjfiQ1pt Impact Currently the subject site does not have an adequate water

distribution system to meet current domestic water and fire protection need&. The project will require an 8 inch water main along the land cde of the Garden Highway extending along the entire frontage of the project site. Thia 8 inch line ia mown aa part of the project on the utility map <Exhibit 3-18). For fire demand requirementa it may be nee ry to extend the water main beyond the w.-terly extenaion of the project site to connect to an exisiing 8 inch main to

form a looped system. An encraac:hment permit from the Reclamation Board will be required to install utiliti• in the levee eec:tion.

b. Fas:ta in Snppgrt of Fjndinr The significant effect llirted above will be reduced

to a less than significant level with the following mitigation meaaures:

L The project spon.J10r shall be tespoaaible for installing an 8 inch water main to eerve the site. and ahall obtain all nee ry Reclamation Board permita for work to be done in the levee eection. The characteristics of the diirtribution .,..tem aball be in accordance with the City Fire Department and Public Works Departznent':s specif'ication:s for adequate

fire protection.

4L SOLID WASTE - 5.13-2 Cumulative Solid Waate

a. Sjgnifis;apt Impas;t The cumulative development in the South Natomas :sub­region including the Propoeed Project would result in approximately 6.27 percent of the mlid waste estimated to be generated by cumulative development within the project aree.. Aa stated in the methodology aection. any additional contribution to the c:umulative waate stream ia considered significant. The Recycling Ord.inance c:urrently being developed by the City will reduce thia impact. However, the eolid waste generated by the propmed project will add to the cumulative waste strellm. This ia conaidered a significant impact.

b. Fam in Suppprt of Fjpdinc The significant effect liated above will be reduced

to a 1- than significant level with the following mitigation melUIW"eS

L There ab.all be compliance with the requirement.a of the City of Sacramento Public Works Department, Solid Waate Division. The Departxnent requires the Wl8 of truh. compactor machinee by major commercial. retail. office, and hotel c:u.stomer.s. While, the9e machines do not reduce the ac:tual amount of' waate to be treated. the amount of space that the waste occ:upies ia reduced. This could result in fewer trips by

26

CALENDAR PAGE

MINUTE PAGE , ·~ , ..

~·.

132

0006j.2 •. . ·.:"J·~

trash haulers to the lan~ill mte. but tb.i8 would not be a a:i.gnificant reduction.

2. There shall be adequate space designed at ground floor level of the office buildings to accommodate future recycling effort& Thia apace ab.all be designed and Wied for the purpoee of recycling only. The deaign of this recycling area will be subject to approval by the City of Sacramento, Department of Public Worla. Solid Waate Division.

3. The goal.a and requirements of Section 34 to the Zoning Ordinance that will addrea recycling and eolid waate c:iiaposal ahall be met.

42. POU-:E & FIRE - 5.14-1 Police

a. Sirnificapt Impact The buildings in the Propoeed Project may be equipped with inadequate lighting areas 1:.bat would promote crime&

Development UllOCiated wi1:.h the Sierra Health Foundation propc-.l may be designed such that inadequately lighted areas exist, or it may contain areas tbai: would promote crimes. A !Significant impact may exiat.

b. Fasi:., jn Supwn; of Fjndjp~ The significant effect listed above will be reduced to a less than a:i.gn.if'icant level with the following mitigation measures:

L The project shall ·comply with the requirements of the City of Sacramento Police Department in order to avoid design features that :may promote c:rimin•l element& All dellign {-.tu.res and eecurity mea.surea including lighting, fencing, and accw llhall be in accordance with the Biological Reeources mitigation meaaurea. Security lighting must not be directed into the Bannon I.land Nature Study Aree; aecurity fenc:i.ng around the project aite must not intrude or substantially effect the Bannon Taland Nature Study Area or the 30 foot buffer area along

the Bannon Slough and along the river bank.

LIGHT & GLARE - 5.16-1 Glare Imi:-cts

a. Sismificapt Immc;t The environmental conditions provide in-place mitigation to both the intenaity and reach of the glare onto the adjacent properties. The u:iRing treea •rve to aigni:ficantly eut the effect of the glare impact. This anal,..U concludes that the overall glare impact of the Sierra Health Foundation Center ranges f'rom low to minimal AzJ.y impact in glare is caD8idered an environmental impact. Therefore. this impact ia a significant impact.

b. fact.a in Support gf Find.in~ The aigni.fic:a.nt effect liated above will be reduced to a 1- than s:gn.if'ic:ant level with the following mitigation measures:

In order to protect again.st the minimal intensity glare that may reach into the

CALENDAR PAGE 133 .... ,.

BitSOll PAGE - .

intenection of Garden Highway. and Gateway Drive and along Garden Highway. the applicant ahall uae .,lar reflectivity g.i.- (6 percent) and plant deciduous (native to the project area) trees and other vertical land.ecaping along

the northern edge of the aite at locationa which will intercept the glare around the driveway entrances and recaic.. - propo9ed. the m08t 80Uthern eximng U­

adjacent to the Sacramento River. All tr.. planted around the driveway entrances shall be planted to provide a clear line of sight to the -tisfaction of the City Traffic Engineer. thereby ensuring appropriate ingrem and egreaa. The size and type of trees to be plan'ted shall be selected by conau.lta.tion with a landacape architect and approved by the Environmental Services DivU.~on. The location and type of tree8 ah.all be included on plana submitted for building permit&

CULTURAL RESOURCES - 5.17-1 Prebiwu>ric Reaourcea

a. Signiffoant Imast Under the propowi aite plan. no known cultural reBC>urces will be impacted on the land portion. - none were identified during the survey. Impac:t.s could result to potential unknown buried reeourcea with thia alternative. Thie could be a significant impact. Impac:t.s could result to

unknown underwater reeourcea with thia alternative. Thie could be con.aidered a significant impact.

b. F•rn in Sp;zpgrt gf Fjpdipg The significant effect listed above will be reduced to a lem than significant level with the following mitigation meaaures: If' cultural rmources are di9covered during any phaa of construction. all work must be halted within 20 meters (60 feet) of the reeource located until that re.ource can be aa12• d by a profemicmal archaeologist. If' any human skeletal remain• are encountered. it ia a1-> required that the County Coroner be notified CCEQA Guidelines, Part vm of Appendix K).

The above protection. to be effective, requires reuonable obaervat::ion and hooest,, timely reporting on the P91"t of the contractors and excavation/grading crew. Crew superviaora should be i:c.atructed on signs of cultural uae in order to enable such depoaita to be identified aa quickly aa pomible. before eerious damage ia done.

45. AES"r:s::e::ncs - 5.18-4 South Natomas Community Pl.an. Guiding Policy

a. Sigpifisant Immc:t The intent of thia goal ia to maintain a balance between

view8 of the Sacramento while providing public aCICelllL An impact will eJCist if the project w Dot conaiste:a.t with thia goal of the SNCP.

b. F@rn in Suppgrt gf Fjnding The significant effect list.ed above will be reduced

to a lem than significant level with the following mitigation measures

L The propaeed project shall util.i%e landscaping within the three view corridors which do not result in tall den.ee vegetative cover which could

entirely block view• of the river. The Land81::aping Plan mould be

28 CALENDAR PAGE 134

MINUTE PAGE

reviewed by the Design Revjew Board. Should the landacaping design\

change substantially from that reviewed in this document. additional\/ environmental review shall be required.

B. sIGNJFICANT IMP :\CTS WHICH CANNOT BE Ayomrn

Finding - The City finds. that. where feaaible. the changes or alteration.shave been required in. or incorporaud into. the Prt.,~ which reduces the significant environmental im.pacta listed below as identified in the EIR. However. specific economic. aocial, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures to reduce the following impacts to a less-than-aignificant leveL This finding isr.:o_pported by evidence in the record of the proceeciing before the City including the draft and final EIR prepared for this project. All available, rea.onably feasible mitigation measures iden'tified in the EIR are employed to reduce magnitude of the im.pact.. Where feasible mitigation mea.sures exist to reduce the magnitude of impact. even if the reduction is not to a lea i:han significant level, the City has agnMd to employ such mitigation measures to the extent feasible. Alao incollX>rated by reference into this eection are the findings and facts stated in Section m th.at rc~act the alternatives for failure or infeaaibility to mitigate the potenti-1 effect and ac:hievf 'the basic objectives of the project..

L LA..'1D t:SE - 5.1-lC Conflict with the South Natomu Community Plan Riverfront Policy

a. Sjsnifisapt Impac;t The Propo.ec:l Project includes two buildings, which would in~pt views of the river from the Garden Highway.

b. Fa.st:s ip Suppgrt pf Findjnv No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the view im.pac:t.s of the river to below a les.than-signjficant level other than the adoption of an Alternative. Alao incorporated by reference into this paragraph are the facts stated in Section m that reject the alternatives for failure or infeasibility to mitiga~ the potential effect and achieve the applicant's basic objectives.

2. LAND USE - 5.1-3A Conversion of 5.73 acres of vacant riverfront land to :ion-riverfront uaee

a. Sjgpifis;apt Impa,c;t The Propoeed Project will result in the conversion of 5. 73

ac::re. of vacant riverfront land to urban WM&

b. Fac;t.s in Suppgct of Findini" This impact will be reduced to the extent feasible

with the following mitigation mea.sures identified in the Sierra Health Foandation Center EIR. The mitigation. measure will reduce the magnitude of the impac:ta, but would not make the ire.pact leee-than-trignificant. AD.y o'f the devevlopment Alternativea which meet the applicant's objectives would result in impact to riverfront open space.

The Final EIR propoeed one mitigation measure to reduce t.he magnitude of

impact:

29

CALENDAR PAGE 135 : ·~' ."'

E PAGE ood61.S

L I..089 of riverfront open spmce for a non-river dependent u.e can be mitigated in part by requiring the applicant to contribute a riverfront acquisition fund

3. TRANSPORTATION - 5.5-1 Intel"lleCtios::UI

a. Signifjnmt Impast The interaec:tion of Garden Highway/Nato'CD&8 Park Drive would operate at eervice level F conditio~ during both the a.m. and p.in pell.le hour. Since the addition of project traffic re9Ult.. in an inc:rea.e in v/c ratio of 0.02 during the a.m. peak hour. the interaiec:tion would be significantly impacted by the project.

The project driveway located at the western boundary of the site ia located nearby to a driveway for the Chevy'a Re.tau.rant. Thia creates a potential conflict between vehiclm attempting to tur:D. left from Garden Highway into the project site and vehicles exiting the adjacent restaurant. Thia ia considered to be a significant impact.

b. Fasr.t in SupPPrt gf Fjpdjp;-

The significant effect listed above will be reduced in magnitude by requiring the pro~ sponsor to U:ciplement mitigation :m-.ure 2 below as part of the projeer. Mitigation .measure 1.however. will requireacquiai'tion of Right-of-way. design engineering and costa beyond the remaonable 8COpe of thUr individual projeer. As such. the City will require the applicant to contribute a fair aha.re contribution to the conauuction of thees improvement&

L Add a aecond through lane in the w..cbound direction at the intenec~ion of Garden Highway and Natoma Park Drive. Thia mitigation would

require the widening of the north side of Garden Highway by 16 feet for a length of approximately 500 feec east and west of Natom.&9 Park Drive. This would involve the acquiaition of additional right-of-way. construction of a retaining wall approximately 15-20 feet in height. relocation of overhead electrical uUlities. relocation of tree., and modifications to the traffic sign.al (e.g.. controller. two mast arma. etc.). The project apcm.eor ah.all contribute hia fair ab.are of the cost of implementing the above mitigation at the intenec:tion of Garden Highway/Natoma. Parle Drive.

Prohibit left turn movementa from weetbound Garden Highway into and out of the project driveway at thew.tern boundary of the aite. ThMI would require a modification of the propoeed driveway deaign to allow only righ1'-turn-in and righ~tu.rn-out movementa using the appropriate channelization. The project sponaor shall a.-ume all financial responsi.blity for implementing thia mitigation.

TRANSPORTATION - 5.~5 Mid-Range Cumulative Impact.s

30 CALENDAR PAGE 136

MINUTE PACdjt, Q.Q9~j_6

a. Signifisont Immst The interaection of Garcien Highway/Natomaa Park Drive

would operate at service level F conditions during the a.m. peak hour and eervice level E conditions during the p.m. peak hour under mid-range conditions. Si.nee the addition of project traffic results i.n an incre&Be in v/c ratio of 0.02 during

the a.m. peak hour. the i.nt.eraec:tion would be s:ignificandy impac:ud by the project.

b. Fac:t;:r jn Supaoct of Fjndjpa- The &"ignif'icant effect .1iated above results from the c:umulative contributions to traffic from many individual projecus and is not mlely at;tributable to thia pro~ In addil:ion. the mitigation will require acquisition of Right~f-way. design engineering and C08t8 beyond the reuonable -=ope of thia inc~vidual project. A. such. the City will require the applicant to contribute a fair share contribution to the conatruction of these improvements. Implementation of theee m~ will reduce the magnitude of im.pac:t.

L Add an exclusive rig.I:.;; turn lane in the westbound direction. a eecond exclusive left turn lane in the eaftbound direei:ion. and re-stripe the northbound direction of Natomas Park Drive for two lanes to except the additional left turn lane form ~und Garden Highway at the intersection of Garden Highway and Natomas Park Drive. Thi• mitigation would require the widcn.ing of the non:h side of Gard.en High way by 12 feet for a length of approximately 500 feet ea.st. and west of Natomas Park Drive. Thia would involve the acquisition of additional right-of-way, co~ruction of a ret-einins wall approximately 16-20 feet in height. relocation of overhead electrical utilities. relocation of trees,

and modificationa to the traffic aignal (e.g.. controller. two mast arms, etc.). The project sponaor shall contribute hia fair share of the co.st of implementing the above mitigation at the intermction of Garden Highway/Natomas Park Drive.

5. TRANSPORTATION - 5.~ Long-Range Cumulative Impacts

a. Signifisnnt llppas;t The interaectiona of Garden Highway/Gateway Oaks.,

Garden Highway/I-.5 eouthbou.nd ram.pa. and Garden Highway/Natomas Park Drive would operate at aervice level E/F conditions during both the a..m.. and p.m.

peak hour. Since the addition of project traffic naults in an inc:reaae in v/c ratio

of 0.02 at all three locations during the a.m. peak hour. the interaectior.ur would

be significantly impacted by the project.

b. Fas;ta ip Suppgrt gf Fjpdjni' The significant effect listed above resulta from the

cumulative contributicma to traffic from many individual projecta and is not aolely at:tn"butable to thia project. In addition. the mitigation will require acquiaition ofRight~f-way, qeerign engi.neeriDg and CDlrta beyond the reaaonable llCOpe of thie individual project. Aa such. the City will require the applicant to contribute a fair share contribution to the co:aat:ruction of theee improvements. Implementation of these measures will reduce the magnitude of impact by

requiring the project spoc.90r to contribute a fair share contribution to these

mitigation measures:

31

CALENDAR PAGE 137

L The addition of a second left turn lane in the westbound direction. which

would be required to mitigate long-term conditioDAI. is not f muible for the intersection of Garden Highway/I-5 southbound rami:- at thi.a time. Additional studiea conducted by Caltran. would be required to determine the long-term improvementa for the I-5/Gardec. Highway interchange. The project sponaor shall conuibute his fair share of the cost of implementing the eecond left turn lane or an equivalent improvement to the inteuection of Garden Highway/I-5 aouthbound rampa.

2. The addition of a second through lane in the we.n:bound direction and an exclu.llive left turn lane in the westbound direction at the intersection of Garden. Highway/Gateway Oaka Drive. This mitigation would require the widening of the 90Uth side of Garden Highway by 12 feet and the north side of Garden Highway by 12 feet for a length of approximately 500 f~ east and wee of Gateway Oab Drive. It would require the dedication of right-of-way by the project spcm.90r on both sideB of Garden Highway. Thia would involv~ the conai:ruction of a retaining wall approximately 10 feet in height. relocation of overhead electrical utilities on the north side of Garden Highway. relocation of trees. and modificationa to the traffic signal (e.g., two maat arms. etc.).

6. AIR QUALITY - S.7-1 Ozone Impacta

a. SjgnifiMpt !mpa.c:t After the Propoeed Project'• completion. ROG and NO:x emisaiona are estimated to ·be higher when compared to the existing •tting. Table S. 7-3 illustrates the emimiona generated by the traffic from the Propo.ed Project and Alternatives. The traffic ueociated with the project is estimated to produce 44.1 pounds of ROG while producing 37.2 pound. of NOx. This would

be an increeae of 44.l pound. of ROG and 37.2 pounds of NO:x em.imiona per day over the e.z:isting .setting. An increue over the emcing .setting ia a significant impact. Sacramento ia a non-attainment area for ozone and carbon-monoxide. Implementation of the recommended mitigation m...ure therefore, will aasist in reducing emmi...iom from this project. but will not result in the attainment

of State and Federal atandarda.

b. Fast.a in Suppgrt; gf Fipdipl' This impact will be reduced to the extent feasible

with the following mitigation measures identified in the Sierra Health Foundation Center EIR The mitigation measure will reduce the magnitude of the impacta. but would not make the impact le-.th&c.-eignificant.

L Provide informatioa. oii the U.S. Postal Service'• "Stampe on Call Program'" (which provides delivery of po8tal products to the employees).

The ptogiam is available at the nearest Local Delivery Unit of the Postal Service.

2. Provide and maintain at leut S Bike Locken C1us I in the parking garage of Building A and 7 Bike Lockers Claaa I in the parking garage of Building B within lSO feet of an entrance.

32 CALENDAR PAGE 138

MINUTE PAGE OOOG1.8

3. D.ignate at leaat 5 prefcential parking spacea in Building A and 7 preferential parking sp&c:e!I in Building B. near an entrance for vanpool and carpool vehicles.

Provide and maintain a diaplay that would be located in a central location for employees of the propoaed project that would list amenities within tb.e propoeeci project and within a U2 of a mile of the project site (e.g .. food. cleaning, insurance. banking. childcare. and public transit).

5. Distribute an annual letter to employees to inform them of the above itema. Alao. new employees would need to receive the letter prior to

starting work so they would be aware of the aervicee deacribed above.

6. Provide and maintain a shower facility with penonal lockers for both men and "Women within the design in -ch of the buildings of the propoeed project.

7. Participa'te and maintain membership i:i the South Natoma.! Transportation Management Aaeoc:iation.

7. .AIR QUALrrY - 5.7-2 Cwnulative Ozone Impacta

a. Signifisppt Impas:t The propmed project may add to the impacts of cumulative development for ROG and NO:z in the South Nato=-- Community, Citywide and Regionwide. An increa.ae over the existing ae1:ti:D.g is a significant impact.

Sacramento is a non-attainment area. for ozone and carbon-monoxide. Implementation of the recommended mitigation mmuure therefore, will aasiat in reducing emmiWoaa from thie project. but will not result in the attainment of State and Federal standard&

b. Fasts in Sµopgrt gf Fjpdipg This impact will be reduced to the extent feasible with the following mitigation measuree identified in the Sierra Health Foundation Center E:I:& The mitigation measure will reduce the magnitude of the impacts. but would not make the impact lem-than~icant.

1. Implement mitigation 6. 7-L

8. AIR QU.ALl'l'Y - 6. 7-3 Carbon Monoxide Impacts

a. Sicn,ifiant Impes;t; The Propoeed Project's traffic would not violate the 1-hour

8tat.e or federal standard at any of the intezBeCtioaa analyad in Table 6.7-6. However. traffic ePM:iated with the propoeed project will contribute to

increued CO emimiona above the S.hour stat.a and federal standard at the intenection of Garden Highway at I-5 southbound ramps Table 6. 7-7. The existing traffic crmdition (AA) at the intereection af Garden Highway at I-5 is alao in violation of :he state and federal CO standards Table 6. 7-7. A violation

of the state or federal standard ia a significant impact. Sacramento ia a non­attainment area for ozone and carbon-monoxide. Implemt?ntation of the

33

CALENDAR PAGE 139

recommended mitigation meaaure therefore. will ..m.t in reducing emmi•ion. from this project. but will not result in the attainment of St.ate and Federal standarda.

b. fast.s in Snpmct gf Fjndin8' This impact will be reduced to the extent feasible with the following mitigation measures identified in the Sierra Health Foundation Center ~ The mitigation meaaure will reduce the magnitude of the impacts. but would not make the impact lem-than-aigni:ficant.

L Implement mitigation 6. 7-1 and 5.6-L

9. AIR QUALITY - 5. 7-6 Particulate Matter Impacts

a. Sigpjfic:nnt Imp•st The traffic aaeociated with the Propoeed Project will result in 42.8 pounda per day of PM-10. An inc:re&99 of PM-10 level. would impact surrounding land uaes. motoriata. and pedestrian& A project that: produce more PM-10 than the exiating set:ting ia a significant impact; therefore. t.hia i.mpa~ ia significant.

b. Foru jn Strnpgri; of Fjpdjpg This impact will be reduced to the extent feasible

with the following mitigation measures identified in the Sierra Health Foundation Center ~ The mitigation measure will reduce the magnitude of the impacts, but: would not make the impact lem-than-aigni:fican:t.

L Implement mitigation 6. 7-1 and 5.6-L

10. AIR QUALITY - 5.. 7-7 Cw:nulative Particulate Matter Impacta

a. Sjgnific;npt Ima•st The traffic a.moc:iated with the· Propoeed Project and combined with cumulative projects will result in PM-10 problem& An increa..se of PM-10 levels would impact .surrounding land u-. motoriat.s. and pedestrians. The Propoaed Project was identified .. having a significant ilnpact to project specific PM-10 problems; therefore. the project's contribution to cumulative impac:t.s will be significant. Sacramento ia a non-attainment area for ozone and carbon-monozide. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure therefore. will ....urt in. reducing ernmi•ions from thia project. but will not rmult in the attainment of State and Federal standard&

b. Festa ip St"'!PQrt gf Findinc Thia impact will be reduced to the extent feuible

with the following mitigation measures identified in the Sierra Health Foundation Center~ The mitigation measure will reduce the magnitude of the impacta, but would not make the impact 1--than-eignif'ican.t.

L Implement mitigation 5.. 7-1 and 5..5-L

1L AESTHETICS - 6.18-1 Conaerve and Protect Planned Open Space

34

CALENDAR PAGE 140

MINUTE PAGE 000620 _-. ., •.t • , ...

a. Sjgpjfirant Irppast The project ate U. vacant. any on-Bite development will result in a phya:ical/viaual cb•nge to the exiating environment .. well aa to the natural/open space character of the adjacent eoutb and east land.a. Tb.is ia con.aidered a significant unavoidable impact-

b. F@c:ra in Supmct gf Fjpdjpg Thia impact will be reduced to the extent feauible with the following .mitigation me&S\U"ell identified in the Sierra Health Foundation Center EIR. The mitigation measure will reduce the magnitude of the impac:u, but would not make the impact l ... than-aignificant.

L The proposed project aball be reviewed by the Demi.gn Review Preaervation Board to enaure compatibility and cooaiatency with adjacent land uaes and open space nature pre:werve area& Should the desip. change substantially from that reviewed in t.hiJr document.. additional environmental review shall be required.

12. AES1'BETICS - 5.18-3 SGPU. Section 6 Implementing Policy, Goal C

a. Sigp;.-:sant Impest An.y on-site development will result in a change to the exiating environment aa well aa to the natural/open space ch.ara.cter of the adjacent 90Utb and east land& This U. conaidered a significant unavoidable impact.

b. Fasta jn Sµpmrt of Fipdini" This impact will be reduced to the extent feauible with the following mitigation meaauree identified in the Sierra Health Foundation Center EIR. The mitigation measure will reduce the magnitude of the impac:t.s, but would not make the impact lese-than-Cgnif'icant.

L The propolled project shall be reviewed by the Design Review Preservation Board to ensure compatibility and cona:iatency with adjacent land uses and open space nature preserve area& Should the design change substantially from that reviewed in this docucent. additional environmental review shall be required.

13. AESTHETICS - 5.18-5 American River Parkway, Goal 1

a. Sjgnifigmt Impact An impact will exist if the project is inccm.sistent with the City'• goal of provide public accea and preserving open apace along the American and Sacramento Rivers.

b. Fast.a in Supmct of FjndinK' This impact will be reduced to the extent feasible with the following mitigation meuuree identified in the Sierra Heel.th Fou.uc:lation Center EIR. The mitigation measure will reduce the magnitude of the impact&. but would not .make the impact 1--than-Cgnif'icant.

L The propolled project shall be reviewed by the Design Review

Preservation Board to ensure compatibility and consistency with adjacent land uaea and open space nature preserve area& Should the

35 CALENDAR PAGE 141

MINUTE

92-804

design change substantially- from that reviewed in thi.e document. additional environmental review shall be required.

14. AEST.REtl'lCS - 5.18-6 Enaure Public View and Accem to the Sacramento River

a. Sigpifiespt Impnc:t Vacant properties which are located along the Sacramento River have the potential to provide opportunities for pedestrian accesa and views to the River. Thia increaaed intenaty of the site would decreased public view and may reduce potential accem pointa to the Sacramento River.

The propoeed project does not include a deaignated public pedestrian accem to the river. Thia is a sign.if'ican.t impact.

b. Fac:t=t jp Supwrt of Fjpdjpg This U:npact will be reduced to the extent feasible with the following mitigation meamuras identified in the Sierra Health Foundation Center EIR. The mitipeion m-..ure will reduce the magnitude of the impac:tA. but would not make the impact 1-.than-significant.

L Maintain the building's lin..r coverage to approximately half of the .site's total width; thereby retaining most of the allowable view to the Sacramento River.

2. Provide a designated public ac:c...way to allow the public to •~ and enjoy the river from the site.

m REJECTION OF .ALTERNATIVES

CEQA mandl'ltes that every EIR evaluate a no-project alternative along with other "build" alternativea to the Project. The following alternativea were considered for the Sierra Foundation Center EIR:

Alternaeive A- No Project Alternative Alternative B - Office. Hotel. Conference Facility. Marina. and Pavilion Alternative C - Office. Restaurant. Banquet Facilities, and Fiahing Dock Alternative D - Riverfront Residential. Marina. and Pavilion Alternative E - Office. Residential. Marina. and Pavilion Alternative F • Office. Residential. and Banquet Facilitim

None of the alt.en:.~tives which the exception of the No Project alternative would eUmjnate the significant and unavoidable impact.s of the propomed project.

A. Altcrnatin A • No Pmjm;t; Alt,crngtiye

Under the No-Project Alternative. the site would retain its present open space and undeveloped state.

The No-Project alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project bec:au.e it propcw no development on the project site. Project impac:ta ueociated with

36 CALENDAR PAGE 142

MINUTE PAGE 0_00622 92-804

... ,..,,. , ... -

land u.e.aestiletic:a. traffic:. noiae,airqua.lity, microclimate. geology/eoila, human health. biological rmources. cultural resources. public servicm and utilities, and natural resources would remain at current levels and would be leas than the propoeed project.

Finding

Specific economic, .!IOCial. or other con.siderationa make infeasible the No Project Alternative identified in the ElR and deacribed above in tha~

1. Selection of the No-Project Alternative would not, however, at:tain the basic objectives of the Project sponaora. The objectives of the Project span.or are:

• Provide a project to houae the Sierra Foundation Center Headqua..n:ers office. u well aa provide additional development for income production.

• Provide a project in a unique loc:al:ion. • Provide a project loc:at;ed on the river to enhance the working and

creat"ve environment. • Provide a project with a cloee proximity to Downtown Sacramento. • Provide a project with a location within the City of Sacramento. • Provide a project which will accommodate a range of small to large

groups for meetings and conferences. seminars and health related data. display information, admir..:strative functions, and provide space for organizations rela:ed to the Sierra Foundation..

• Provide a market rate income producing investment that diversifi• the Sierra Foundation's monetary blue.

• Provide for long term expansion for the Sier:-a Foundation when needed in. the fu'CW"e as well as accommodate organizations which want to locate on the River or locate in cloee proximity to the Sierra Foundation offices.

2. The No-Project Alternatives would n~ contribute jobs. tax revenue and/or economic support to the City.

a. Significant effect.s of the preferred project are acceptable when balanced againat facts aet forth in the Statement of Overriding Con.nderationa and stated

above, and are :nore acceptable than thoee anticipated from the No Project Alternative which would not allow the applicant to meet bis objectives.

B. Alternat;jY!! B - Office. Hgt.cl Conference Fasjlity. Marina. end Payiljon

Alternative B includ• Building A. a 23.000 square foot office space to eerve .. the Sierra Fow::t.dation headquarters, and Building B. a 40,000 equare foot hotel and confenmce center with 50 hotel rooms of 600 gram square feet per room. 2.500 equare feet of support space and 7,500 square feet for meeting/aeembly space.

The water portion of the alternative would include a marina and a two story pavilion. The marina would include 20 uncovered be~ con.siating of 16 by 44 feet alipa. The marina would also have 2 guest spaces. The two story pavilion includes 2,960 equare

37 CALENDAR PAGE 143

MINUTE PAGE . (

NO TEXT THIS PAGE

CALENDAR PAGE 144

MINUTE PAGE 000624

feet on the lower level and 2.250 square feet on the upper leveL The upper level wocld accommodate a 2.250 aquare foot, 75-eeat restaurant. The lower level would houae a 2.250 equare foot multi-purpoee room with 475 aqua.re feet of .support space and 225 square foot harbor master's office.

This alternative would be result in more inte:oae im.pacta :o the site and Sacramento River environment than the propaeed project.. The i.mpacta to noi.ee., geology/aoil.s, biological reaourcee. water quality/byd.rology/d.raiAage. cultural rmourcea. public services and utilities. lighuglare. and aesthetics are expected to be similar or greater than the Propc>Md Project. The i.mpacta to land u.e plana and policies. transportation/circulation. and air quality are expected to be equal to or leas than the Propoeed Project.

Finding

Specific economic:. BOCi.al.. or other conaiderationa make Alternative B infeasible 3.!I

identified in the EIR and described above in that:

L Selection of Alternative B would not. however. attain the basic objectives of the Projec1; sponsor. The objectives of the Projec:t sponsor are::

+ Provide for long term exp&D8ion for the Sierra Foundation when needed in the future a.swell aa accommodate organi:ationa which. want to locate on the River or locate in cloee proz:imity to the Sierra Foundation office&

2. Selection of Alternative B would not result in a sig:a.ificant reduction of impacts. and could result in greater i.mpacta to the Sacramento River environment resulting from the marina facility.

3.. Significant effects of the preferred project a.re acceptable when balanced agam.t fac:ta eet forth in the Statement of Overriding Consideratioo.e and stated above, and are more accept.able than thoee anticipated from Alternative B.

C. A]t,cmgtiye C - Office. Rmt.awsnt Bapqps:::t Fasilitim. apd Fi3bjng 'Qns;k

Alten:i.ative C includes one building on the western portion of the .site. It would have

23.000 equare feet of office space for the Sierra Foundation headquarters. a 4.000 square foot restaurant and a 3.000 square foot meeting/banquet room. The building would total 30,000 aquare feet. The eaatern portion of the .site would not be intensively developed iD order to allow open 8J>&ce and to provide a buff er between Bannon Ialand Nature Study Pre.erve and the project.

The water .side development would include 10 transient dock:age facilities. a public fiahing pier and a river viewing platform.

This alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed project in the areas of land use compatibility. aesthetics,transportation/circulation. biological reeourcea.

38

CALENDAR PAGE 145

M 000625

light/glare. air quality and pre.ervation of _open ~ce. Thi. Alternative dom however. include limited waterfront development Cfiahing dock) which would po91e additional noiee. geology/eoils. water qualicylbydrology/drainage. cultural reaourcee, public servicea and utilities, and aesthetics at a level greater than the Propoeed Project.

Finding

Specific economic:. social. or other con.s:iderationa make inieaaible Alternative C u

identified in the EIR and deec:ribed above in that:

L Selection of thia Alternative would not at:tain all of the projec::t objectives. The project objectives which would not be met are:

• Provide a market rate income producing invesanent that diversifies the Sierra Foundation's monetary baae.

+ Provide for long term expa.caion for the Sierra Foundation when needed in the fu~ a.swell aa accommodate organi:ation.s which want to loca~

on the River or loca~ in claee proximity to the Sierra Foundation office&.

2. Alternative C would generate 1- revenue to the City and provide fewer employment opportunities than the propaaed project.

Significant effects of the preferred project are acceptable when balanced against facts .et forth .in the Statement of Overriding Consideration. and stated

above. and are more acceptable than th08e anticipa1:ed from Alternative C.

D. A!tc!":)atiye P - Riyerfront Rm:identiol Meri"'D. and Payjligo

Alternative D includes medium denai.ty residential units. the marina and the pavilion. The residential component .includes a total of 54 unit.a of UOO aquare feet and with a height of 3 .stories.

The propoeed project would .include a marina with 20 uncovered berths. a two .story pavilion includ• 2.9S> 8q'UAre feet in the lower level and 2,250 equare feet in the upper level The upper level would accommodate a 2,.2SO aqua.re fooc. 7~t nft&W'm1t. The lower level would hOU88 a 2.250 aqua.re foot multi-purpoee room with 475 aquare feet of support space and 225 aquare foot harbor master's office.

Thia alternative would result in greater environmental effecta to Sacramento River environment becauae the project includes a marina but would be environmentally comparable to the propaeed project in eome other reapect.& The impacts to land U9e

compatil:.ility, noise, geology/soils. biological resources. water quality/hydrology/drainage. cultural rmources, public aervicea and utilities, light/glare,. and aesthetics are expected to be similar or greater than the to the Propoeed Project. The impacts to land uae plana and policies. transportation/circulation, and air quality are expect.eel to be lesa than the Propoeed Project.

39

CALENDAR PAGE 146

MI QQ0.~6

Finding

Specific economic. social. or other considerations make infeasible Alternative D a.a identified in the EIR and described above in that

1. Selection of tbia Alternative would not, however. attain the project objectives.

The project objectives ar~

• Provide a project to house the Sierra Foundation Center H-dquarter11 office. as well as provide additional developmen~ for income production..

• Provide a project which will accommodate a range of small to large groups for meetings and conferencee, •minara and health related dau.. display information. ac:iminist:rative function.. and provide space for organizations relat.ed to the Sierra Foundation.

+ Provide for long term expansion for the Sierra Foundation when needed in the future as well as accommodate organizatioaa which want to locate on the River or locate in claee proximity to the Sierra Foundation offices.

2. Thia Alternative would generate leu revenue to the City and provide fewer employment opportunities than the propaeed projec:t.

3. Currently, the City of Sacramento baa placed reatric:tim:w on the development of residential units within the South Natomas area uni:il comprehensive flood control me&SU1"911 are available.

Selection of Alternative B would not result in a significant reduction of impacts. and could result in greater impacta to the Sac:ramesu.o River environment resulting from the marina facility.

5. Significant effects of the preferred project are ac:ceptable when balanced against fact.11 aet forth in the Statement of Overriding Ccmsiderationa and stated above. and are more acceptable than thoee anticipated from Alternative D.

E AH;,crnntin E - Offjs;c, B.mjdential Marina, and Payilign

Altemative E would be developed for office space. low denaity residential the marina and pavilion. The office portion ia Building A. a 23.000 square foot apace for the Sierra Foundation Headquarter&. The residential component includ• a total of 30 unit.a of 1.100 mquare feet and with a height of 3 stories. The water side portion of the alternative would include a marina and a pavilion. The marina would include 20 un..:overed berth& The marina would alao have 2 guest space& The two story pavilion include. 2.9~ equare feet on the lower level and 2,.250 aqu.are feet on the upper level The upper level would accommodate a 2.250 aqua.re foot, 75-eeat restaurant. The lower level would houae a 2.250 aquare foot multi-purpoae room with 475 square feet of support space and 225 9qU&Z"9 foot harbor maater's office.

40 CALENDAR PAGE 147

MINUTE PAGE .000627

Thia alternative would be environmentall,Y- similar to the propoeed project except that the propoeed project does not include a marina and the related impacu. The impacts

to land uae compatibility. noiae, geology/.90ila. biological reeou.rcu. water quality/hydrology/drain.age. cultural rmourc:a. public •rvices and utilities. light/glare. and ae8thetiC9 are expect.ed to be .similar to the Propoeed Project. The impac:u to land use plana and policies, tranaportation/ci.rculation. and air quality are expected to be i._. than the Proposed Project.

Finding

Specific economic, eocial. or other consideration. make infeasible Altel":lative E u

identified in the EIR and de8Cribed above in that:

1. Selection of this Alternative would not. however. attain the project objectives. The project objectives are:

• Provide for long term expaxi.sion for the Sierra Foundation when needed in the future aa well aa accommodate organizationa which want to locate on the River or loca~ in close proximity to the Sierra Foundation officea.

2. Alternative E would generate lem revenue to the City and provide fewer employment opportunities than the propoeed project.

a Currently. the City of Sacr&mento has placed restrictio:-.a on the development of residential units within the South Natomaa area until comprehensive flood control measures· are available which affects the feaaibility of the residential portion of thia project.

Selection of Alternative B would not result in a significant reduction of impacts, and could result in greater impact.a to the Sacramento River environment resulting from the marina facility.

5. Significant effect.a of the preferred project are acceptable when balanced

again.st facts aet f or..h. in the Statement of Overrici:ng Con.siderationa and stated above. and are more acceptable than thoee anticipated from Alternative E.

F. Alt.crnntiye F - On=«iw Offjg: gnd B.mt.at;-ant {No Muims>

Alternative F include. one office builc:ling and a restaurant with banquet facilities. The building would be located 011 the western portion of the site. It would have 23,000 aqua.re feet of office 9P8C8 for Sierra Foundation headquarters. a 4.000 mquare foot restaurant and a 3.000 mquare fooc meeting/banquet ~ The building would total 30,000 8qWlre feet. The 911.b.:.ern portion of the site would not be intea.lli.vely developed in order to allow open space and to provide a buffer between Benncm. Island Nature Study Preserve and the project.

Thia alternative would be environmentally superior to the propoeed project. The

41 CALENDAR PAGE 148

MINUTE PAGE 000628 . . ~"'. . -

impacta to land uae compatibility. tran.sportaticm. air ~ey. nm-. geology/.W., biological resources, water quality/hydrology/drainage. cultural reaoun::es, public eervices and utilities, light/glare. and aesthetics are expected to be 1- than the Propoeed Project.

Finding

Specific economic. social. or other c:onaideratioc.s make infeaaible the Reduced Intensity Alternative identified in the EIR and deacribed above in that:

L Selection of this Alternative would not. however. attain the project objectives. The project objectives are

• Provide a :z:c.arket ra'te income producing inveetment that diversifies the Sierra Foundation's monetary baae.

• Provide for long term e%pansion for the Sierra Foundation when needed in the future aa well as accom.modate organizationa which want to locate on the River or locai:e in cloee proximity to the Sierra Foundation officea.

2 Alternative F would generate lem revenue to the City and provide fewer employment oppol"1:Uniti-~ the propoeed project.

3. Significant effects of the preferred project are acceptable when balanced againat facts •t forth in the Statement of Overricling CoaaideratioD.8 and stated above. and are more accepi:able than thoee anticipated from Alternative F.

rv. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS

Noi:witbstanding disclosure of the significant impacts and the accompanying mitigation. the City haa determined pursuant t.o Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines that the benefits of the propoeed project outweigh the adverse im.pacta. and the propaeed project aball be approved.

With reference t.o the above findings and in recognition of thoee facts which are included in the record. the City bu determined that the propaeed project would contribute t.o

environmental impacts which are considered cgnificant and advene, u d.iacla.ed in the EIR prepared for the propoaed project.

The City specifically finds, and therefore makes this Statement of Overriding Consideratio:i.s, that u a part of the plow of obtaining project approval. all significant effectA on the environment with implementation of the propoeed project have been eHminated or substantially 1-ned where feuible. Furthermore. the City hu determined that any remaining significant effects on the environment found t.o be unavoidable are acceptable due to the overriding canmderaticma deecribed below:

A. The Project would support the General Plan goal of promoting economic vitality and

diversification of the local economy.

CALENDAR PAGE 149

B. The Project would create jobe and anchor the h-dquartenr of an important non-profit foundation in the City of Sacramento.

C. The Project would provide adequate off..a:-t par.king for new development and reduce the impact of on-street par.Icing in eR&bliahed a.reaa.

43 CALENDAR PAGE 150

MINUTE PAGE 000630 92-804 ; .,, , ...

EXHIBIT D

L A N D 5 C ~ P E

~RCHITECTS

_. f' L .~ \' .\· E R S

REVEGET ATION MONITORING PROGRAM

MARCH 5, 1997

Riverbank Repair & Erosion Protection for:

Presented to:

Sierra Health Foundation 1321 & 1331 Garden Highway Sacramento, California

State of California State Lands Commission Attn: Public Land Management Specialist 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South Sacramento, California 95825 (916) 574-1843 File Ref No.: 25340

Department of Fish and Game Region 2 Fish and Game Warden 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A Rancho Cordova, California 95670 (916) 983-5162 ~otification No. II-196-95

Prepared on Behalf of:

Prepared by:

Sierra Health Foundation 1321 Garden Highway Sacramento, California 95833

The HLA Group Landscape Architects & Planners, Inc. 1990 Third Street, Suite 500 Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 447-7400

CALENDAR PAGE

MINUTE PAGE

The HI.A Group I Landscape An:hitects & Planners. Inc.

CRLA 1669 1990Third StreeL Swu: 500 Sacramento. CA 95814 916/447-7400 FAX 916/447-8270

151

REVEGET ATION MONITORING PROGRAM

SYNOPSIS

Project Location: 1321 & 1331 Garden Highway, City of Sacramento, State of California Section 26, Township 9 North Range 4 East

Project Applicant Mr. Len McCandliss for Sierra Health Foundation 1321 Garden Highway Sacramento, California 95833

Revegetation and Civil Engineering Plans Prepared by: The Spink Corporation 2590 Venture Oaks Way Sacramento, California 95833

Revegetation Monitoring Program PreparP.d by: The HLA Group, Landscape Architects & Planners, Inc. 1990 Third Street, Suite 500 Sacramento, California 95814 (916) 447-7400

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. OVERVIEW B. PROPOSED VEGETATION C. IRRIGATION COVERAGE AND WATERING FREQUENCY D. MONITORING AND REPORTING E. REPORT OF FINDINGS F. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES G. APPENDIX

PAGE

1 1 2 2 5 6 7

CALENDAR PAGE 152

MINUTE PAGE 000632

Man:h 5, 1997 Revegetation Monitoring Program

A. OVERVIEW

This yearly monitoring program for five years shall be a guide to chart the revegetation establishment progress, as well as to identify the procedures for handling failed plant material with the goal of reaching 75% minimum plant material survivability at Sierra Health Foundation's referenced site. This monitoring program is designed to protect and maintain riparian woodland systems and to ensure a "No Net Loss" in wildlife value and riparian habitat.

This program is based upon the Agreement Regarding Stream Alteration ("Agreement'') entered into between the State of California, Department of Fish and Game, and Len Mccandliss', representing Sierra Health Foundation. Pursuant to Division 2. Chapter 6 of California Fish and Game Code, Len McCandliss, representing Sierra Health Foundation, notified the Department of Fish and Game ("F & G") on April 27, 1995 that they intended to substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of, or use material from the Sacramento River streambed: Sacramento River in the County of Sacramento, State of California, Section 26, Township 9 North, Range 4 East.

B. PROPOSED VEGETATION

Based upon the submitted plan by The Spink Corporation in 1995, for Sierra Health Foundation, the following plant material will be planted:

5Qtani,al Name CQmman Name Size Trees Alnus rhombiliolia California White Alder 5 gallon

Platanus racemosa California Sycamore 5 gallon

Shrubs Salix hindsiana Sandbar Willow 5 gallon Salix hindsiana Sandbar Willow Poles Salix hindsiana Sandbar Willow Wattles"" •wattles shall be plAnted bawttn the 3+00 and 8+00 amllnus only.

Rubus vitifolius C~lifornia Blackberry Liners, 36" o.c Vitus californica California Wild Grape Liners, 36" o.c

Hydroseed Groundcover (including specified mulch, tacifier and fertilizer): California Wildflower Seed mix

Deschampsia elogatum Tall Tuffed Hat Grass Hordeum brachyanthepum Meadow Barley Vulpia myuros Zorro Annual Fescue

~ 19 16

46 29 102

1,660 SF 1,820 SF

5/AC 4/AC

10/AC 4/AC

Total Hydroseeded Groundcover Area= 24,730 SF CALENDAR PAGE 153

MINUTE PAGE 000633 1

Marth 5, 1997 Revegetation Monitoring Program

C. IRRIGATION COVERAGE AND WATERING FREQUENCY

The irrigation system, as designed by The Spink Corporation, utilizes pop-up gear driven rotors to irrigate the entire slope. Irrigation coverage of the project is based upon operating the system of a sufficient frequency, as discussed below, which will enable the planted slope to receive an adequate precipitation rate while minimizing the potential for erosion.

An estimated irrigating frequency to achieve adequate coverage per season shall be as follows:

s Summer Fall Winter

Days per Week 3 4 3 2

Station Run Time 8 10 6 8 (minutes per day)

Cycles per Day .., 2 2 1 ...

Existing site applicable factors which directly influence an optimum irrigating frequency must be monitored by the on-site water manager (landscape maintenance company). Such factors include but are not limited to soil type, distribution uniformity as a result of wind and run-off as a result of ground-plane cover.

Five years from the completion of the landscape revegetation the plant material shall be evaluated to determine if the irrigation system should be abandoned. Plant material should be sufficiently established to enable survivability without an irrigation program.

The determination shall be addressed within the fifth year monitoring report.

D. MONITORING AND REPORTING

Pursuant to the Agreement, Sierra Health Foundation shall be responsible for monitoring, reporting and replacing plant material, which has failed to establish itself, to densities and quantities as designed in 1995 by The Spink Corporation.

Monitoring shall be completed by an ISA Certified Arborist, Ornamental Horticulturist or Landscape Architect (the "Professional") with experience in evaluating riparian plant species. The Professional retained shall inventory the site once a year every year for an overall time period of five (5) years.

CALENDAR PAGE 154

MINUTE PAGE 000 2

4

March 5, 1997 Revegetation Monitoring Program

The first inspection for the monitoring report shall be conducted by June 1 of the year following commencement of the landscape installation. The monitoring report shall be submitted to:

and

Department of Fish and Game Region .2 Fish and Game Warden 1701 Nimbus Road, Suite A Rancho Cordova, California 95670 Notification No. II-196-95

The State of California State Lands Commission Public Land Management Specialist 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100, South Sacramento, California 95825 File Ref No.: 25340

The time of year for site monitoring shall be in the late spring to early summer (prior to June 1). With each monitoring phase, the Professional shall inspect the site for plant material noting species which have failed to establish or are stressed to a point in which failure is inevitable.

The rating criteria shall be indicated as follows for each tree, each shrub variety as a category and each groundcover as a category. All plant material shall be identified by botanical and common name, tree caliper, shrub quantity, and groundcover square footage. Within the submitted report for each of the three (3) above noted categories a rating of "Good", "Fair", or "Poor" shall accompany. The definition for each rating is as follows:

GOOD: Plant material in this category have no trunk or root crown cavities or injuries; there is not indication of hollowness; no foreign objects are imbedded in its structure; the root crown is above grade there is not decay present except for small stubs; the structure is strong; the trunk is tapered; the bark thickness is normal; there is no fluxing; no fungus is evident; there is a below average amount of dead branching present; there are no large callused areas and any small callusing present is vigorous and intact; there are no abnormally heavy insect infestations; the growth rate is and has been average or above; limb weight is not excessive; buds are normal size and viable; the leaf size, color and density is normal or better; and barring any unforeseen negative effects.

CALENDAR PAGE 155

MINUTE PAGE 000635 3

March 5, 1997 Revegetation Monitoring Program

FAIR: There is no decay or indications of hollow areas, root crown or trunk; a few small callused-over foreign objects, no fungus is evident other than small saprophytes on exposed dead wood; some small, callusing injuries may be present, some small limbs may be dead and decaying but callus is forming at their base; some excessive limb weight may exist; there may be some minor fluxing; the amount of dead limbs and twigs present is within the normal range; some large callused areas may be present; some small cavities and areas of decay may be present the growth rate is average or slightly below average; and some leaf size, color and density may vary.

POOR: Significant cavities, dead areas, and decay may be present; the plant is structurally defective, fungus fruiting bodies may be present; the amount of dead limbs and twigs is far above normal; major co-dominant branching with imbedded bark may be present; buds are small and some may not be present; and the predicted structural life and/ or viability is less than ten years.

The ratings "good to fair" and fair to poor" are used to describe plant material that fall between the described major categories and have elements of both.

Each tree shall be individually inspected noting, in addition to the success rating, the following applicable conditions:

Dripline Environment:

Dripline Radius:

Root Crown:

Condition:

Old wound:

Failure (mainstem or branch):

Cavitv:

Basal cavity:

The area of soil around the tree directly under its out most branch tips. The measurement from the tree trunk to the end of the farthest reaching branch tip. The point where the major lateral roots originate typically near ground level. The condition of the tree in general, referring to health and vigor. An area on the mainstem or a large lateral limb where some type of injury has removed the outer bark down to the interior wood; a.k.a. scar. A condition where a portion or part of the tree has structurally failed and caused limb shed or the tree has fallen over. A large opening originating in the outer bark or in a branch stem and reaching inside the tree's interior wood. A cavitv at the base of thE trunk or in the root crown ~ea. CALENDAR PAGE

MINUTE PAGE

156

000636

March 5, 1997 Revegetation Monitoring Program

Sprout growth:

Bud swell:

E. REPORT OF FINDINGS

Describes growth of adventitious buds, µsually on trunk or large lateral branches. An indicator of environmental stress. The state or condition/presence of the future growing seasons bud formation. Applies to deciduous/ dormant trees. An indicator of overall vigor I potential foliage coverage.

The yearly plant material inventory report shall be submitted within ten (10) working days of the site inventory. The report shall identify, in addition to the above mentioned criteria, the inventory date, weather, temperature, site conditions, and approximate river water elevation. The report shall be typewritten and in the format as set forth in Attachment "A", attached hereto.

Sierra Health Foundation shall be responsible for replacing the noted plant material that has failed to establish or is stressed to a point past recovery. The percentage of vegetation and trees that shall be replaced will be such that a 75% success rate will be achieved by the end of year 5.

Thus, at the end of each year the Professional will report whether the respective yearly success rate (as indicated below) has been achieved. The goal will be to attain a minimum yearly success rate, as follows:

YEAR Year 1 Year 2 Year3 Year4 Years

SUCCESS RA TE (PERCENT AGE) 95% 90% 85% 80% 75%

If at the time of inspection the success rate has not been achieved, Sierra Health shall replant materials and trees to attain this level of success. For example, if at the time of inspection for the Year 1 Monitoring Report only 80% of all plant material and trees were remaining, then Sierra Health will replant the percentage of plant material and trees necessary to achieve 90% success by the end of Year 2, and so on.

Replacement plant material and hydroseed shall be the identical genius and species as originally specified for planting by The Spink Corporation's planting plan. Plant material shall be replaced within 60 days of the submitted plant material inventorv report date.

CALENDAR PAGE 157

MINUTE PAGE 000637 5

March 5, 1997 Revegetation Monitoring Program

Plant material shall be replanted as per the original planting details as found within The Spink Corporation's set of construction documents. See end of this document for copies of those details for reference.

If the site inventory report finds that less than 75% of the trees planted have survived by the end of the five year report period, alternate replacement trees will be reviewed for substitution to account for site conditions which have caused the trees to die prematurely. Replanting of the trees which fall below the 75% success rate shall not commence until determination has been made as to the exact replacement variety. As an example, 19 Alnus rhombifolia (California White Alder) and 16 Platanus racemosa (California Sycamore) will be planted. At the time of the five (5) year monitoring report a minimum of 75%, or 27 trees, shall be alive and in an acceptable healthy condition based upon the rating criteria previously mentioned.

All construction with regards to replanting/replacing of plant material which did not survive during the five (5) year monitoring time frame shall be done as per applicable Department of Fish and Game Guidelines as set forth within -the original Agreement Regarding Stream Alteration, Notification No. II-196-95.

F. PROJECTALTERNATIVES

Alternatives in the event of extensive vegetation growth failure would be to first isolate the cause of the failure and if possible correct it. For example, if extensive vegetation growth failure is a direct result of fungus or an invasive insect then the recommendation would be to treat the plant material with an approved fungicide or insecticide. On the other hand, if plant failure is a result, for example, of excessive time spent submerged due to the river's unusually high water elevation an alternate plant palette should be investigated as a replacement for plants which have failed. An alternate approach would be to maintain the same plant palette and re-plant at an elevation higher up the slope.

CALENDAR PAGE 158

MINUTE PAGE

6

APPENDIX

DETAIL DESCRIPTION

1. TREE PLANTING DET All

2. C.M.P. PLANTING DETAIL

3. POLE PLANTING DET All

4. WATTLE PLANTING DETAIL

5. GROL"NDCOVER SPACING DETAIL

6. ATTACHMENT "A"

7

March 5, 1997 Revegetation Monitoring Program

CALENDAR PAGE 159

MINUTE PAGE 000639

l 1. 3.

•• 5. 6. i. e.

SECTION NO SCALE

' - _.j • \ -.:,,__--:-

-. '•'

.·.-

,,·- ... -,--

--~· --------t~

.. ~< - ... .,.. .;..•

0 - ~~-:-· ~= .. ~:;: -. ~-- ~ ·~, I

~ · ... ""· - ~- .-:: ... - . ' ...... .,.,~ =

,_ --·

. --.> ·-

;,. -,:· :_· =-

- -·­- -

iR& 5TAG5: 2"• X IO'•C" ~SSUi=iE·'iiCEAiEO 1.COGEP~.NE. I PESC 5 CsAL. i~EE. Siue5ESC TiiUiE l~S: :Z ~ ST Ale£. W!iiAF "1C J.o.l!~E AliiCtNc~ CIC !...;,~. ~: 2"L.A~ - - ~-. 4• M!GM &AllTM M~. · 7-~ '-..: ~SM G;:u.c&. IC.EEP SCCCT CliiOW"1 1· .:.eove !='Thl!SM cs;;a.AOi.' -· "R.TJ." SIC•PACS, 5 P:lii 5 GAL.. .. .__ __ _

i=~.c.i:cE ~ sss s~c:~:c.!. "T":C"15. --~-EX!SiI"1G ~ISTUsceEO SCIL .,;.

_-~REE P~ANTIN~-----.• _. -- r.===~==============:;::::::========:::;i ........

CALENDAR PAGE 160

MINUTE PAGE 000640

·- ... -. --- -- --- -·---.... ----- - -- .. .. ·----= .. -: ~ - ;:; : : :_ .,; - ·-·-: ... -~-- --=-.- --·-

-.~ -- - ~ -···-- .... __ .. _.:.._

-, -::~-----­~ --·. -- ··-------------· ;e~-~~~-.

O£T AJl. 'n"'P. - - ..

-~~~~c ( eEE c::v=.. F=!..ANS)

- .

C.M.P. PLANTING

---2'• C"1fP. P-TT ON ":'MIQ!!! e~e. ,..,...OV! F:l."MiR FABR!C Ai SO~OM F!l..!. ""1 TCJF:i- SOIL M:x

lr.ONE~i <SEE ~~L..ANSJ

-------­~·---- ------ .. __ --

CALENDAR PAGE 161

MINUTE PAGE '000641

-

··. - ..........

... ':"OP eari. covr.:a W~RE~-

r.i.~ll!~C (SE c::Yil.. P!...ANeJ

.. ~ ~ - ··-

··"" .... -

-~

@ ?.OLE PLANTINGS L..-1

.:..

- --- -

-: -!. - J

= ... J

CALENDAR PAGE

MINUTE PAGE

~· - .

-.::.

162 000642

r~i'ERI'~

_<.~, c:.~ ~~)

~~

. ,:~~ ' - ' -

~A TTLE PL~NTINC: -i•

.- -- ·-

- ' -

CALENDAR PAGE 163

MINUTE PAGE '000643

+ ... . +--1\ I /\./s\-.. \ ... --0 ··--· c. .. 0 \ VI~!-.) . + ... ~+-~/

J/2 e:>, r. K ep. C.(!. • •, i'YFICAL. •,

FLAN NOS~:

I. GilC~COV:~ SPACING: S= ~NiING LEG:Nt::l. :. GiiC~V:IQ Cc~. J. ~. ~C O~ !OGE OF GRO~VE!Ol PLANTING.

@C=ROUNDCOVER SPACING . 1..-1

CALENDAR PAGE 164

MINUTE PAGE "QC 0644