City Council Report 915 I Street, 1 st Floor Sacramento, CA

City Council Report 915 I Street, 1 st Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 www.cityofsacramento.org File ID: 2018-00061 January 23, 2018 Public Hearing Item 16 Title: Proposed Changes to Planned North Natomas Roadway Improvements (Noticed 01/12/2018) Location: Natomas Crossing Drive alignment between East Commerce Way and El Centro Road; Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane connection between Beretania Way and Windsong Street, District 1 Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion pass: 1) a Resolution certifying the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; 2) a Resolution amending the Sacramento 2035 General Plan; and 3) a Resolution amending the Bicycle Master Plan. Contact: Pelle Clarke, Associate Civil Engineer, (916) 808-8930, Department of Public Works; Remi Mendoza, Associate Planner, (916) 808-5003, Community Development Department. Presenter: Ryan Moore, Interim City Traffic Engineer, (916) 808-6629; Pelle Clarke, Associate Civil Engineer, (916) 808-8930, Department of Public Works. Attachments: 1-Description/Analysis 2-Background 3-Maps of Project Locations 4-Draft Supplement to the 2035 General Plan EIR 5-Resolution (EIR Certification) 6-Resolution (General Plan Amendment) 7-Resolution (Bikeway Master Plan Amendment) 8-Exhibit A Revised Bikeway Map Matthew Ruyak, Interim City Attorney Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk John Colville, City Treasurer Howard Chan, City Manager Page 1 of 39

File ID: 2018-00061 Public Hearing Item 16 Description/Analysis Issue Detail: The City proposes amending the Mobility Element of the 2035 General Plan to eliminate the planned roadway portion of Natomas Crossing Drive between East Commerce Way and El Centro Road from planned improvements. This facility would be replaced by an off-street bike path to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians, including an overcrossing of I-5. Additionally, the City proposes to convert the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane Connection between Beretania Way and Windsong Street from a local street to a paved trail for use only by bicyclists and pedestrians. Policy Considerations: Policy Considerations: The proposal is consistent with the following 2035 General Plan goals and policies. Goal M 1.1: Comprehensive Transportation System. Provide a multimodal transportation system that supports the social, economic and environmental vision, goals, and objectives of the City, and is effectively planned, funded managed, operated, and maintained. Policy M 1.1.2: Transportation Network. The City shall manage the travel system to ensure safe operating conditions. Goal M 1.2: Multimodal System. Increase multimodal accessibility (i.e., the ability to complete desired personal or economic transactions via a range of transportation modes and routes) throughout the city and region with an emphasis on walking, bicycling, and riding transit. Policy M 1.2.1: Multimodal Choices. The City shall develop an integrated, multimodal transportation system that improves the attractiveness of walking, bicycling, and riding transit over time to increase travel choices and aid in achieving a more balanced transportation system and reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Policy M 1.2.2: Level of Service (LOS) Standard. The City shall implement a flexible context sensitive Level of Service (LOS) standard, and will measure traffic operations against the vehicle LOS thresholds established in this policy. Policy M 1.2.3: Transportation Evaluation. The City shall evaluate discretionary projects for potential impacts to traffic operations, traffic safety, transit service, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian facilities, consistent with the City s Traffic Study Guidelines. City of Sacramento January 23, 2018 powered by Legistar Page 2 of 39

File ID: 2018-00061 Public Hearing Item 16 Policy M 1.2.5: Ultimate Roadway Network. If development projects would cause or exacerbate unacceptable LOS E or F conditions, the City shall not expand the physical capacity of the planned roadway network to accommodate the project beyond that identified in (General Plan) Figure M4 and M4a (2035 General Plan Roadway Classification and Lanes). To maintain acceptable LOS E or F conditions, the City may require applicable vehicle trip reduction measures and physical improvements that increase transit use, bicycling, or walking and traffic operational improvements. Policy M 1.3.2: Eliminate Gaps. The City shall eliminate gaps in roadways, bikeways, and pedestrian networks. To this end: a. The City shall construct new multi-modal crossings of the Sacramento and American Rivers. b. The City shall plan and pursue funding to construct grade-separated crossings of freeways, rail lines, canals, creeks, and other barriers to improve connectivity. c. The City shall construct new bikeways and pedestrian paths in existing neighborhoods to improve connectivity. Goal M 2.1: Integrated Pedestrian System. Design, construct, and maintain a universally accessible, safe, convenient, integrated and well-connected pedestrian system that promotes walking. Goal M 5.1: Integrated Bicycle System. Create and maintain a safe, comprehensive, and integrated bicycle system and set of support facilities throughout the city that encourage bicycling that is accessible to all. Provide bicycle facilities, programs and services and implement other transportation and land use policies as necessary to achieve the City s bicycle mode share goal as documented in the Bicycle Master Plan. Staff finds that the proposed project provides safe pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and improves accessibility and system connectivity by removing physical and operational barriers to safe travel. Additionally, the project enhances the quality of life within the existing neighborhoods on both the east and west side of the freeway by eliminating cut through traffic that would negatively impact those neighborhoods. Economic Impacts: Not applicable. Environmental Considerations: To comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City prepared a Draft supplemental environmental impact report (SEIR) that was prepared and circulated for public comment as required by CEQA. The SEIR evaluates the significant effects that could occur as a result of the proposed project, which involves City of Sacramento January 23, 2018 powered by Legistar Page 3 of 39

File ID: 2018-00061 Public Hearing Item 16 amendment of planning documents, and other actions, as they relate to transportation infrastructure and funding in North Natomas. The Draft SEIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period beginning October 19, 2017 and ending December 4, 2017. Three comment letters were received (one from Regional San and two from United Auburn Indian Community). The comment letters, responses and any technical changes are included in the Final SEIR. The Final SEIR document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and together with the Draft SEIR (and Appendices) constitutes the SEIR for the proposed project used by decisionmakers during project hearings conducted on January 11th and 23rd, 2018. The Final SEIR responds to all comments received on the Draft SEIR and revised text and/or analyses where warranted. The comments and responses, including any changes, do not alter the conclusions of the Draft SEIR. Certification of the SEIR, adoption of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Conditions by the City Council satisfy CEQA requirements relating to the project. The SEIR may be found online at http://www.cityofsacramento.org/community- Development/Planning/Environmental/Impact-Reports Sustainability: Not applicable. Commission/Committee Action: On January 11, 2018, the requested resolutions were heard by the Planning and Design Commission. The Planning and Design Commission voted unanimously to forward the project on to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. No member of the public spoke to support or oppose the project. With a vote of nine ayes, zero nays, and four absent, the Planning and Design Commission voted to forward the project to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Rationale for Recommendation: The proposal would remove an unnecessary vehicle overcrossing and replace it with an overcrossing that better serves pedestrians and cyclists. Financial Considerations: Not applicable. Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable. City of Sacramento January 23, 2018 powered by Legistar Page 4 of 39

Background: The City of Sacramento certified the Master EIR and adopted the 2035 General Plan on March 3, 2015. The 2035 General Plan establishes the policy foundation for growth and development in the City of Sacramento, including the North Natomas area. The 2035 General Plan includes an updated North Natomas Community Plan (NNCP) and identifies future roadway improvements within the North Natomas community including the extension of Natomas Crossing Drive from East Commerce Way to El Centro Road as a two-lane roadway with access for pedestrian and bicycles. Since adoption of the 2035 General Plan/NNCP and during the process of updating the North Natomas Finance Plan (NNFP), concerns have been raised regarding the effects of the Natomas Crossing extension and the overcrossing on the surrounding community. The proposed project would address these concerns by eliminating the roadway portion of the future extension of Natomas Crossing Drive from East Commerce Way to El Centro Road (which includes the overcrossing of I-5) and replacing it with an off-street bike bath. The proposed project would also convert an existing street segment, the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane connection, to a bike and pedestrian facility. The Project contains two components: 1) Removal of the roadway portion of Natomas Crossing Drive between East Commerce Way and El Centro Road from planned improvements. This facility would be replaced by an off-street bike path to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians, including an overcrossing of I-5, as shown in Attachment 2. Offstreet at-grade bike path connections would continue to be provided east of Duckhorn Drive and west of East Commerce Drive to the planned bike paths paralleling each side of I-5. The proposed project would not eliminate Natomas Crossing Drive east of East Commerce Way. Natomas Crossing Drive would remain unchanged in the plans for future construction between East Commerce Way and Cashaw Way, as a two-lane arterial roadway with on-street bike lanes. 2) Plans to convert the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane Connection between Beretania Way and Windsong Street from a local street to a paved trail for use only by bicycles and pedestrians. Page 5 of 39

These project elements would be achieved through amendments to several City plans and policies. The proposed project would amend plans for future improvements. No funding, design or construction of any projects would occur at this time. At such time as the City decides to proceed with any of the improvements a process would be followed that includes public notice, coordination with affected agencies, and environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is not known when such improvements would be funded and designed, but the evaluation would consider conditions as they exist at that time. The Supplemental EIR reviews the changes in policy and adopted plans, and, to the extent possible at this time, the potential effects on the physical environment. Revisions to the 2035 General Plan Mobility Element, the North Natomas Community Plan, the City Bicycle Master Plan are proposed. The following exhibits would be revised: 2035 General Plan Figure M1, Level of Service Exception Areas would be revised to remove the segment of Natomas Crossing Drive, and to add the segments of Duckhorn Drive and San Juan Road that would operate at Level of Service (LOS) F with implementation of the proposed project; 2035 General Plan Figure M3, Existing/Planned Heavy Rail Corridors, would be revised to remove the segment of Natomas Crossing Drive; 2035 General Plan Figure M4, Citywide Circulation Diagram, would be revised to remove the Natomas Crossing Drive segment; North Natomas Community Plan Figure NN-4, Conceptual Transit Corridors Map, would be revised to remove the Natomas Crossing Drive segment; and The City s Bicycle Network as set forth in the Bicycle Master Plan, would be revised to remove the on-street bicycle lanes on the Natomas Crossing Drive segment. An off-street bicycle/pedestrian trail would be shown from East Commerce Way to El Centro Road, including an overcrossing of I-5. In addition, the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane Connection between Beretania Way and Windsong Street would be added. In addition to figure revisions, the proposed project includes revisions to 2035 General Plan Policy M 1.2.2, the City s Level of Service (LOS) policy. Page 6 of 39

Specifically, the following bullets would be added to Item D. of Policy M 1.2.2 (new text underlined): Other LOS F Roadways - LOS F is allowed for the following roadways because expansion of the roadways would cause undesirable impacts or conflict with other community values. Duckhorn Drive: Arena Boulevard to San Juan Road San Juan Road: Duckhorn Drive to Truxel Road If the City approves the proposed project, the North Natomas Financing Plan and related development agreements would be updated to reflect the proposed changes. The proposed project involves only changes to adopted City plans. The construction of projects identified in those plans would be subject to separate review and approval if they are eventually proposed for design, construction and operation. Ultimately, the proposed project could result in the construction of a new bicycle/pedestrian trail, including a highway overcrossing, along the alignment identified for the extension of Natomas Crossing Drive. If constructed the bicycle/pedestrian trail would occur within the same alignment as the roadway extension, so the cumulative effects of constructing the trail have been adequately addressed at a programmatic level in the 2035 Master EIR. The bicycle/pedestrian trail would tend to have less severe impacts than the roadway extension, because its footprint would be substantially smaller (approximately 14 feet wide, compared to approximately 70 feet wide). The conversion of the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane segment from a vehicle to a bicycle and pedestrian facility was not anticipated in the 2035 Master EIR, but this improvement would involve only minimal construction activities. The existing segment is paved, so only minor paving, re-striping, removal of any barriers for access and new signage would be required. The project-specific impacts relating to any of these actions, and confirmation that the Master EIR adequately identified and evaluated the cumulative effects, would be reviewed when the revised project is proposed for design, funding and construction. Page 7 of 39

Attachment 3: Project Location Future Snowy Egret Drive Future Natomas Crossing Drive Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane Connection Future Snowy Egret Drive Affected Roadways N No Scale SOURCE: DKS Associates, 2017. Project Location Page 8 of 39

Project Location Natomas Crossing Drive Section to be modified SOURCE: DKS Associates, 2017. Page 9 of 39

Project Location - Gibraltar Street / White Eagle Lane SOURCE: DKS Associates, 2017. Page 10 of 39

Attachment 4 - Draft and Final Supplement to the 2035 General Plan EIR: The SEIR may be found online at http://www.cityofsacramento.org/community-development/planning/environmental/impact-reports Page 11 of 39

RESOLUTION NO. 2018- Adopted by the Sacramento City Council January 23, 2018 CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE 2035 GENERAL PLAN/NORTH NATOMAS ROADWAY CHANGES PROJECT SCH No. 2012122006 BACKGROUND A. On January 11, 2017, the City Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing on, and forwarded to the City Council a recommendation to approve the 2035 General Plan/North Natomas Roadway Changes Project (Project). B. On January 23, 2017, the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant Sacramento City Code Section 17.812.010(A)(2)(c), and received and considered evidence concerning the 2035 General Plan/North Natomas Roadway Changes Project. BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council finds as follows: A. On March 3, 2015, the City Council certified a master environmental impact report (Master EIR) and, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the Master EIR, adopted findings of fact and statement of overriding consideration, adopted a mitigation monitoring program, and approved the 2035 General Plan. B. The 2035 General Plan/North Natomas Roadway Changes project proposes to modify the 2035 General Plan and City policies as follows: 2035 General Plan Figure M1, Level of Service Exception Areas would be revised to remove the future, planned segment of Natomas Crossing Drive from El Centro Road to East Commerce Way, including the overcrossing of Interstate 5, and to add the segments of Duckhorn Drive and San Juan Road that would operate at LOS F with implementation of the Project; 2035 General Plan Figure M3, Existing/Planned Heavy Rail Corridors, would be revised to remove the planned extension of the Natomas Crossing Drive; Rev. Page 1 of 18 Page 12 of 39

2035 General Plan Figure M4, Citywide Circulation Diagram, would be revised to remove the planned Natomas Crossing Drive extension; North Natomas Community Plan Figure NN-4, Conceptual Transit Corridors Map, would be revised to remove the planned Natomas Crossing Drive extension; and The City s Bicycle Network as set forth in the Bicycle Master Plan would be revised to remove the on-street bicycle lanes on the Natomas Crossing Drive segment. An off-street bicycle/pedestrian trail would be shown from East Commerce Way to El Centro Road, including an overcrossing of Interstate 5. In addition, the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane Connection between Beretania Way and Windsong Street would be added. In addition to the above figure revisions, the 2035 General Plan/North Natomas Roadway Changes Project includes revisions to 2035 General Plan Policy M 1.2.2. Specifically, the following bullets would be added to Item D. of Policy M 1.2.2 (new text underlined): Other LOS F Roadways - LOS F is allowed for the following roadways because expansion of the roadways would cause undesirable impacts or conflict with other community values. Duckhorn Drive: Arena Boulevard to San Juan Road San Juan Road: Duckhorn Drive to Truxel Road C. Staff determined that the changes proposed as part of the project would require the preparation of a supplemental EIR (SEIR), and that only minor additions and changes were necessary to make the previously certified Master EIR adequate for the Project. A supplement to the previously certified Master EIR was then prepared to address the project changes. Section 2. Section 3. The City Council certifies that the SEIR was prepared, published, circulated and reviewed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Sacramento Local Environmental Procedures, and that the SEIR constitutes an adequate, accurate, objective and complete Final Environmental Impact Report in full compliance with the requirements of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Sacramento Local Environmental Procedures. The City Council certifies that the Final Master EIR as revised by the SEIR has been presented to it, that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final Master EIR as revised by the SEIR prior to Rev. Page 2 of 18 Page 13 of 39

acting on the Project, and that the Master EIR and SEIR reflect the City Council s independent judgment and analysis. Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, and in support of its approval of the Project, the City Council adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations in support of approval of the Project as set forth in the attached Exhibit A of this Resolution. Pursuant to CEQA section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, and in support of its approval of the Project, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program to require all reasonably feasible mitigation measures be implemented by means of Project conditions, agreements, or other measures, as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Exhibit B of Resolution No 2015-0060, certifying the Master EIR and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the 2035 General Plan. The North Natomas Roadway Changes SEIR did not identify any mitigation measures in addition to those adopted for the 2035 General Plan, and would not require revisions or additions to the 2035 General Plan Mitigation Monitoring Program. The City Council directs that, upon approval of the Project, the City Manager shall file a notice of determination with the County Clerk of Sacramento County and, if the Project requires a discretionary approval from any state agency, with the State Office of Planning and Research, pursuant to the provisions of CEQA section 21152. Pursuant to Guidelines section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its decision are located in and may be obtained from, the Office of the City Clerk at 915 I Street, Sacramento, California. The City Clerk is the custodian of records for all matters before the City Council. Table of Contents: Exhibit A - CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the 2035 General Plan/North Natomas Roadway Changes Project Rev. Page 3 of 18 Page 14 of 39

Exhibit A Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the 2035 General Plan/North Natomas Roadway Changes Project Description of the Project The 2035 General Plan/North Natomas Roadway Changes project (Project) proposes to modify the 2035 General Plan and City policies as follows: 2035 General Plan Figure M1, Level of Service Exception Areas would be revised to remove the segment of Natomas Crossing Drive from El Centro Road to East Commerce, including the overcrossing of Interstate 5, and to add the segments of Duckhorn Drive and San Juan Road that would operate at LOS F with implementation of the Project; 2035 General Plan Figure M3, Existing/Planned Heavy Rail Corridors, would be revised to remove the segment of Natomas Crossing Drive; 2035 General Plan Figure M4, Citywide Circulation Diagram, would be revised to remove the Natomas Crossing Drive segment; North Natomas Community Plan Figure NN-4, Conceptual Transit Corridors Map, would be revised to remove the Natomas Crossing Drive segment; and The City s Bicycle Network as set forth in the Bicycle Master Plan, would be revised to remove the on-street bicycle lanes on the planned Natomas Crossing Drive extension segment. An off-street bicycle/pedestrian trail would be shown from East Commerce Way to El Centro Road, including an overcrossing of Interstate 5. In addition, the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane Connection between Beretania Way and Windsong Street would be added. In addition to figure revisions, the Project includes revisions to 2035 General Plan Policy M 1.2.2, the City s level of service policy. Specifically, the following bullets would be added to Item D. of Policy M 1.2.2 (new text underlined): Other LOS F Roadways - LOS F is allowed for the following roadways because expansion of the roadways would cause undesirable impacts or conflict with other community values. Duckhorn Drive: Arena Boulevard to San Juan Road San Juan Road: Duckhorn Drive to Truxel Road Rev. Page 4 of 18 Page 15 of 39

Findings Required Under CEQA 1. Procedural Findings The City Council of the City of Sacramento finds as follows: a. A Notice of Preparation of the Draft SEIR was filed with the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency, and was circulated for public comments from July 5, 2017 through August 4, 2017. b. A Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the Draft SEIR were distributed to the Office of Planning and Research on October 19, 2017, to those public agencies that have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project, or which exercise authority over resources that could be affected by the Project, and to other interested parties and agencies as required by law. The comments of such persons and agencies were sought. c. An official 45-day public comment period for the Draft SEIR was established by the Office of Planning and Research. The public comment period began on October 19, 2017, and ended on December 4, 2017. d. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft SEIR was mailed to all interested groups, organizations, and individuals who had previously requested notice in writing on October 19, 2017. The NOA stated that the City of Sacramento had completed the Draft SEIR and that copies were available at the City of Sacramento, Community Development Department, 300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor, Sacramento, California 95811. The letter also indicated that the official 45-day public review period for the Draft SEIR would end on December 4, 2017. e. A public notice was placed in the Daily Recorder on October 19, 2017, which stated that the Draft SEIR was available for public review and comment. f. A public notice was posted in the office of the Sacramento County Clerk on October 19, 2017. g. A copy was posted online at the Community Development Department web site for environmental documents. h. Following closure of the public comment period, all comments received on the Draft SEIR during the comment period, the City s written responses to the significant environmental points raised in those comments were added to the Draft SEIR to produce the Final SEIR. Rev. Page 5 of 18 Page 16 of 39

2. Record of Proceedings The contents of the record of proceedings shall be as set forth in subdivision (e) of Public Resources Code Section 21167.6. In particular, the following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record supporting these findings: a. The Draft and Final SEIR and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference; b. The City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan, adopted March 3, 2015, and all updates. c. The Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan certified on March 3, 2015, and all updates; d. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the 2035 General Plan. e. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Adoption of the Sacramento 2035 General Plan adopted March 3, 2015, and all updates; f. Planning and Development Code of the City of Sacramento, as amended as of the date of this Resolution; g. Zoning Ordinance of the City of Sacramento; h. North Natomas Community Plan; i. All records of decision, staff reports, memoranda, maps, exhibits, letters, synopses of meetings, and other documents approved, reviewed, relied upon, or prepared by any City commissions, boards, officials, consultants, or staff relating to the Project. j. Any other materials required by Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, or other applicable law, to be included in the record of proceedings. 3. Findings Overview CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to substantially lessen or avoid significant environment impacts that would otherwise occur. Mitigation measures or alternatives are not required, however, where such changes are infeasible or where the responsibility for the project lies with some other agency. (CEQA Guidelines, 15091, sub. (a), (b).) Rev. Page 6 of 18 Page 17 of 39

In cases in which a project s significant effects cannot be mitigated or avoided, an agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if it first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons why the agency found that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. (Public Resources Code, Section 21081, sub. (b); see also, CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15093, 15043, sub.(b).) In the Statement of Overriding Considerations found at the end of these Findings, the City identifies the specific economic, social, and other considerations that, in its judgment, outweigh the significant environmental effects that the Project will cause. These findings do not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the Final SEIR. Instead, a full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the Final SEIR and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the Final SEIR supporting the determination regarding the impacts of the Project and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts. In making these findings, the City Council ratifies, adopts and incorporates in these findings the determinations and conclusions of the Final SEIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures. Supplement to the 2035 General Plan Master EIR As a Supplement to the 2035 General Plan Master EIR, the SEIR evaluates whether the changes could result in a new significant impact that was not evaluated in the Master EIR and/or substantially increase the severity of significant impacts that were identified in the Master EIR. The Project would not alter the conclusions of the Master EIR in any impact area other than transportation. No changes in land use are proposed, so there would not be an increase in development activity over the levels evaluated in the Master EIR. No new development would be funded or constructed as a result of the Project. Construction-related impacts would be reduced, because the bicycle/pedestrian trail and overcrossing would have a smaller footprint than a roadway (DSEIR, page 1-3). The reduced scope of construction would result in reduced potential for loss or disturbance of biological and cultural resources, and decreases in construction-related noise and air pollutant emissions. Construction-related activities would also be required to convert the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane connection from a street to a bike/pedestrian path. However, because this street segment is already paved, only minor improvements would be needed, such as restriping and signage. These issues are not addressed further in the SEIR. The Project would result in a redistribution of traffic in the study area (DSEIR Chapter 4). This would result in very minor changes in traffic-related impacts, such as operational air emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and traffic noise. These changes would not alter the conclusions of the Master EIR (DSEIR, page 1-3). The Project would not increase Rev. Page 7 of 18 Page 18 of 39

development levels, or otherwise substantially alter the City s ability to achieve its GHG reduction goals; therefore, the impact would remain less than significant. Similarly, the project increase in vehicle miles traveled and local redistribution of trips would result in nominal increases in air pollutant emissions and noise levels on local streets, but not enough to alter the conclusions of the Master EIR. Therefore, the analysis and conclusions in the Master EIR regarding traffic-related impacts (e.g., air quality, GHG and noise) would remain unchanged. In addition, because the Project would not alter land use designations or locations, or development levels, the growth inducement and other CEQA considerations discussed in Chapter 6 of the Draft Master EIR would not be affected by the Project (with the exception of cumulative traffic impacts, which are addressed in Chapter 4 of the DSEIR), and are therefore not addressed further in the DSEIR. In support of its approval of the Project, the City Council makes the following findings for each of the significant environmental effects and alternatives of the Project identified in the Final EIR as revised by the SEIR pursuant to Section 21080 of CEQA and section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines: A. Impacts Found to be Less Than Significant and Thus Requiring No Mitigation. Under CEQA, no mitigation measures are required for impacts that are less than significant. (Pub. Resources Code, Section 21002; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.4, subd. (a)(3), 15091.) Based on substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding, the City Council finds that implementation of the Project will not result in any significant impacts in the following areas and that these impact areas, therefore, do not require mitigation. Transportation and Circulation Impact 4-1 Impact 4-2 Impact 4-3 Impact 4-4 Impact 4-5 The proposed project could affect pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The proposed project would change traffic volumes on study area roadway segments. Construction of the proposed project could affect the local street network. The proposed project would contribute to cumulative changes in the pedestrian, bicycle and transit systems. The proposed project would contribute to cumulative increases in traffic on some roadway segments. Rev. Page 8 of 18 Page 19 of 39

B. Significant or Potentially Significant Impacts Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The Project would not result in any significant impacts that were not identified in the Master EIR. No new or revised mitigation measures were identified to reduce or avoid Project impacts. The Project would comply with the applicable mitigation measures identified in Section A of the CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Master EIR. With the exception of the cumulative impact on area freeways (see Sections C and D, below), adopted mitigation measures identified in Section A of the 2035 Master EIR Findings would reduce the impacts of the Project to a less-than-significant level. C. Significant or Potentially Significant Impacts for which Mitigation is Outside the City s Responsibility and/or Jurisdiction. Mitigation measures to mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen the following significant environmental impact of the Project, are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City. Pursuant to section 21081(a)(2) of the Public Resources Code and section 15091(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City Council, based on the evidence in the record before it, specifically finds that implementation of these mitigation measures can and should be undertaken by the other public agency. The City will request, but cannot compel implementation of the identified mitigation measures described. The impact and mitigation measures and the facts supporting the determination that mitigation is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City, are set forth below. Notwithstanding the disclosure of this impact, the City Council elects to approve the Project due to the overriding considerations set forth below in Section F, the statement of overriding considerations. Transportation and Circulation Impact 4-6 The Project would contribute to cumulative increases in traffic on study area freeway segments. Interstate 5 (I-5) between Interstate 80 (I-80) and Arena Boulevard is projected to operate at LOS F with or without the Project (DSEIR Table 4-5). The Project would result in a daily increase in traffic volumes of about 300 vehicles on the segment of I-5 between Arena Boulevard and I-80, which is an increase of approximately 0.14 percent (DSEIR Table 4-5 and DSEIR page 4-27). This minor increase would likely be imperceptible given the anticipated congested conditions on the freeway system. Furthermore, the effect would be limited to only a portion of I-5. Nonetheless, because the Project would exacerbate traffic congestion on I-5, the project contribution to cumulative I-5 traffic would be considered a significant impact. Rev. Page 9 of 18 Page 20 of 39

Mitigation Measures: None available. Finding: The finding that the Project would have a significant impact on a segment of I-5 is consistent with the Master EIR findings (page 38, Impact 4.12-4, and Master EIR Table 4.12-4). The Master EIR found that the 2035 General Plan would result in potentially significant traffic impacts based on the Caltrans LOS threshold and related significance standards for fifteen freeway segments, including the segment of I-5 from Arena Boulevard to I-80. Implementation of policy M 1.5.6 would require that the City support State highway expansion and management plans consistent with the SACOG MTP/SCS (Master EIR Findings, page 38). All freeway improvement projects contained in the MTP/SCS were incorporated into the 2035 General Plan transportation analysis. In addition, implementation of Program 17 would require creation of a City development impact fee program that would fund multi-modal projects that would further alleviate congestion on the freeway segments identified above. However, the extent to which the impacts on freeways would be alleviated by City impact fee policies could not be determined, because this would be a new fee program. Further, because Caltrans has the decision-making authority on implementing improvements to the above freeway segments, the City of Sacramento cannot guarantee implementation and/or the timing of State highway improvements. It is also not certain that improvements to State highways have been identified that would substantially reduce impacts to all of these freeway segments. Feasible mitigation measures beyond the impact-reducing provisions of the proposed 2035 General Plan policies were not available. For these reasons, the Master EIR concluded that the impact of the General Plan on area freeways would remain significant and unavoidable. Similarly, the City of Sacramento cannot guarantee the implementation and/or the timing of the State highway improvements that would reduce the Project impact on the segment of I-5 between I-80 and Arena Boulevard. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. D. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. With the exception of the impact described below, the Project would not increase the severity of the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the Master EIR Findings. Nor would the Project result in a new significant and unavoidable impact that was not evaluated in the Master EIR. The following significant environmental impact of the Project is unavoidable and cannot be mitigated in a manner that would substantially lessen the significant impact. Notwithstanding disclosure of this impact, the City Council elects to approve the Project due to overriding considerations as set forth below in Section F, the statement of overriding considerations. Rev. Page 10 of 18 Page 21 of 39

Transportation and Circulation Impact 4-6 The Project would contribute to cumulative increases in traffic on study area freeway segments. Interstate 5 (I-5) between Interstate 80 (I-80) and Arena Boulevard is projected to operate at LOS F with or without the Project (DSEIR Table 4-5). The Project would result in a daily increase in traffic volumes of about 300 vehicles on the segment of I-5 between Arena Boulevard and I-80, which is an increase of approximately 0.14 percent (DSEIR Table 4-5 and DSEIR page 4-27). This minor increase would likely be imperceptible given the anticipated congested conditions on the freeway system. Furthermore, the effect would be limited to only a portion of I-5. Nonetheless, because the Project would exacerbate traffic congestion on I-5, the project contribution to cumulative I-5 traffic would be considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measures: None available. Finding: The finding that the Project would have a significant impact on a segment of I-5 is consistent with the Master EIR findings (page 38, Impact 4.12-4, and Master EIR Table 4.12-4). The Master EIR found that the 2035 General Plan would result in potentially significant traffic impacts based on the Caltrans LOS threshold and related significance standards for fifteen freeway segments, including the segment of I-5 from Arena Boulevard to I-80. Implementation of policy M 1.5.6 would require that the City support State highway expansion and management plans consistent with the SACOG MTP/SCS (Master EIR Findings, page 38). All freeway improvement projects contained in the MTP/SCS were incorporated into the 2035 General Plan transportation analysis. In addition, implementation of Program 17 would require creation of a City development impact fee program that would fund multi-modal projects that would further alleviate congestion on the freeway segments identified above. However, the extent to which the impacts on freeways would be alleviated by City impact fee policies could not be determined, because this would be a new fee program. Further, because Caltrans has the decision-making authority on implementing improvements to the above freeway segments, the City of Sacramento cannot guarantee implementation and/or the timing of State highway improvements. It is also not certain that improvements to State highways have been identified that would substantially reduce impacts to all of these freeway segments. Feasible mitigation measures beyond the impact-reducing provisions of the proposed 2035 General Plan policies were not available. For these reasons, the Master EIR concluded that the impact of the General Plan on area freeways would remain significant and unavoidable. Similarly, the City of Sacramento cannot guarantee the implementation and/or the timing of the State highway improvements that would reduce the Project impact on the segment of I-5 between I-80 and Arena Boulevard. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Rev. Page 11 of 18 Page 22 of 39

E. Project Alternatives. The City Council has considered the project alternatives presented and analyzed in the Final SEIR and presented during the comment period and public hearing process. Some of these alternatives have the potential to avoid or reduce certain significant or potentially significant environmental impacts, as set forth below. The City Council finds, based on specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, that these alternatives are infeasible. Based on the impacts identified in the Final SEIR and other reasons summarized below, and as supported by substantial evidence in the record, the City Council finds that approval and implementation of the Project as proposed is the most desirable, feasible, and appropriate action and hereby rejects the other alternatives and other combinations and/or variations of alternatives as infeasible based on consideration of the relevant factors set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, subdivision (f). (See also CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091, subd. (a)(3).) Each alternative and the facts supporting the finding of infeasibility of each alternative are set forth below. In making these determinations, the City Council is aware that CEQA defines feasibility to mean capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. The Council is also aware that under CEQA case law the concept of feasibility encompasses (i) the question of whether a particular alternative promotes the underlying goals and objectives of a project and (ii) the question of whether an alternative is desirable from a policy standpoint to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors. Alternatives Considered and Dismissed from Further Consideration An alternative that would alter the land use patterns and/or intensity within the study area is not analyzed in the SEIR. The Master EIR evaluated a full range of alternatives to the 2035 General Plan. One of these alternatives would increase transit corridors and reduce transportation impacts. A second alternative would alter land use patterns and the amount of development, but the traffic impacts would be similar to the 2035 General Plan (Master EIR page 5-1 and Table 5-6). The Project would not affect land uses in the study area, and the effect of the Project is due to a redistribution of trips rather than an increase in trips. For these reasons, the SEIR alternatives focus on the circulation network, not land use. Because the impact of the Project on I-5 is primarily the result of removing a road segment in a particular location, adding another connection outside of the study area would not improve conditions on the segment of I-5 that would be adversely affected by the Project. Therefore, an off-site alternative is not evaluated. Rev. Page 12 of 18 Page 23 of 39

In order to avoid or lessen the effect of the Project on I-5, a connection of East Commerce Way to El Centro Road would need to be constructed between San Juan Road and Arena Boulevard. Most of the area east of I-5 is already built out. Some rightof-way for the Natomas Crossing Drive extension has been retained, and there is no development in this area other than a community garden west of Sparrow Drive. Relocating the connection to the north or south of the Project alignment would not be feasible, because it would require the removal of existing homes, which would displace existing residents and disrupt existing neighborhoods. Therefore, the only alternatives to the Project that are considered in this EIR would occur within the Natomas Crossing Drive extension. Summary of Alternatives Considered The following alternatives to the Project are evaluated in the SEIR: 1. No Project Alternative: The Natomas Crossing Drive extension between El Centro Road and East Commerce Way would remain in the 2035 General Plan, North Natomas Community Plan and Bicycle Master Plan. In addition, the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane connection would remain a local street, and would not be converted to a bicycle/pedestrian path. 2. Local Street Conversion/Retention of Natomas Crossing Drive Extension: The Natomas Crossing Drive extension would be retained, so there would not be any amendments to the 2035 General Plan, North Natomas Community Plan or Bicycle Master Plan. Therefore, the extension would be constructed. Alternative 2 would, however, convert the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane connection to a bike/pedestrian path, the same as the Project. 3. Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane Conversion Only: This alternative would retain the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane conversion to a bike/pedestrian path, the same as the Project. The Natomas Crossing Drive extension would be eliminated from planning documents, and no bicycle/pedestrian path would be planned for the extension right-of-way from East Commerce Way to El Centro Road. There would be no overcrossing of I-5 planned for bicyclists and pedestrians. Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, the full Natomas Crossing Drive extension, including vehicle lanes, on- and off-street bike lanes and sidewalks, would remain in the 2035 General Plan and North Natomas Community Plan. In addition, the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane connection would remain a local street, and would not be converted to a bicycle/pedestrian path. Rev. Page 13 of 18 Page 24 of 39

Relationship of Alternative 1 to Project Objectives Most of the objectives of the 2035 General Plan would continue to be met under the No Project Alternative. However, constructing the Natomas Crossing Drive extension would be costly, which could divert funds from other priority projects. In addition, the construction of this extension would convert a corridor that is used as open space by local residents to a 70-foot wide roadway. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not promote the maintenance of a vibrant community or contribute to the enhancement of an existing neighborhood to the extent that the Project would. Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility While the No Project/No Build Alternative would reduce the impact of the Project on a segment of I-5, it would not avoid the impact, which would be significant and unavoidable with or without the Project. The effect of the Project on I-5 would be minor, increasing the number of trips on the segment from I-80 to Arena Boulevard by 300 trips per day (DSEIR Table 4-5), or 0.14%, under cumulative conditions (DSEIR page 4-27). The No Project/No Build Alternative would not convert the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane connection to a bicycle pedestrian/path and would convert a corridor currently used as open space by local residents to a roadway, which would not achieve the objectives of maintaining a vibrant community and/or contributing to enhancement of an existing neighborhood to the extent that the Project would. The Natomas Crossing Drive extension assumed in the 2035 General Plan would be a substantially and costly infrastructure project, composed of two vehicle through lanes, a center turn lane, parking and bike lanes, sidewalks and a trail (DSEIR, Figure 3-3). The roadway would be 59-feet wide and the required right-of-way would be 110 feet (DSEIR Figure 3-3). Retaining the high-cost Natomas Crossing Drive extension could divert funds from other priority projects, including improvements that would better achieve the 2035 General Plan objectives regarding smart growth, living more lightly, maintaining a vibrant economy and a sustainable future. For the above reasons, Alternative 1 is rejected. Alternative 2: Local Street Conversion/Retention of Natomas Crossing Drive Extension Under Alternative 2, the Natomas Crossing Drive extension would be retained, so there would not be any amendments to the 2035 General Plan, North Natomas Community Plan or Bicycle Master Plan to remove the vehicular extension. Therefore, the roadway extension would be constructed. Alternative 2 would, however, convert the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane connection to a bike/pedestrian path, the same as the Project. Rev. Page 14 of 18 Page 25 of 39

Relationship of Alternative 2 to Project Objectives Most of the objectives of the 2035 General Plan would continue to be met under Alternative 2. However, retaining the high-cost Natomas Crossing Drive extension could divert funds from other priority projects. In addition, the construction of this extension would convert a corridor that is used as open space by local residents to a roadway. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not promote the maintenance of a vibrant community or contribute to the enhancement of an existing neighborhood to the extent that the Project would. Alternative 2 would also provide bike lanes and a bike path along the Natomas Crossing Drive alignment, and include an additional bike/pedestrian connection, which would contribute to the health of residents by promoting biking and walking within neighborhoods. Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility Alternative 2 would reduce the Project impact on a segment of I-5, but would not avoid the impact, which would be significant and unavoidable with or without the Project. The effect of the Project on I-5 would be minor, increasing the number of trips on the segment from I-80 to Arena Boulevard by 300 trips per day (DSEIR Table 4-5), or 0.14%, under cumulative conditions (DSEIR page 4-27). The Natomas Crossing Drive extension assumed in the 2035 General Plan would be a substantially and costly infrastructure project, composed of 2 vehicle through lanes, a center turn lane, parking and bike lanes, sidewalks and a trail (DSEIR, Figure 3-3). The roadway would be 59-feet wide and the required right-of-way would be 110 feet (DSEIR Figure 3-3). Retaining the high-cost Natomas Crossing Drive extension could divert funds from other priority projects, including improvements that would better achieve the 2035 General Plan objectives regarding smart growth, living more lightly, maintaining a vibrant economy and a sustainable future. For the above reasons, Alternative 2 is rejected. Alternative 3: Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane Conversion Only This alternative would retain the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane conversion to a bike/pedestrian path, the same as the Project. However, the Natomas Crossing Drive extension would not be constructed, nor would a bicycle/pedestrian path be built within the extension right-of-way from East Commerce Way to El Centro Road. There would be no overcrossing of I-5 for bicyclists and pedestrians. This alternative is the same as the project described in the DSEIR Notice of Preparation. The Bicycle Master Plan would be amended to remove the on-street and off-street bike lanes along the Natomas Crossing Drive extension. The Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane connection would be added to the Bicycle Master Plan. Rev. Page 15 of 18 Page 26 of 39

Alternative 3 would eliminate the Natomas Crossing Drive extension from planning documents, so it would not be constructed in the future. Nor would the on- and offstreet bicycle and pedestrian facilities along this alignment be constructed (Impact 4-4). Under the Project the bicycle and pedestrian facilities would also provide more direct routes for bicyclists and pedestrians with more local destinations that would not require crossing I-5. Relationship of Alternative 3 to Project Objectives Most of the objectives of the 2035 General Plan would continue to be met under Alternative 3. However, Alternative 3 would not provide additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities to the extent that the Project would, so it would not contribute to the health of residents by promoting biking and walking within neighborhoods to the extent that the Project would. Facts in Support of Finding of Infeasibility Because Alternative 3 would remove the vehicular travel lanes from the Natomas Crossing extension, the impact on freeway segments would be similar to the Project. The increase in vehicles attributable to the Project on the segment of I-5 would continue to be a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact 4-6), and would not be reduced or avoided by Alternative 3. Under Alternative 3, bicyclists and pedestrians would be confined to more circuitous routes through residential neighborhoods or to using the existing unimproved right-ofway of the extension. Furthermore, Alternative 3 would reduce the bicycle network anticipated in the Bikeway Master Plan. This would be a significant impact of Alternative 3 that would not occur under the Project. Pedestrians and bicyclists wishing to cross I-5 in the study area would need to use the Arena Boulevard overcrossing or the San Juan Road undercrossing. Depending on where the bicycle or pedestrian trips originate and end, using these alternative routes could result in greater travel distances, which could deter individuals from using nonauto modes of travel, or from making the trip at all. For the above reasons, Alternative 3 is rejected. F. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City of Sacramento has considered the information contained in and related to the Final SEIR (the Draft SEIR, Comments and Responses to those documents, and all other public comments, responses to comments, accompanying technical memoranda and staff reports, and findings included in the public record for the Project). Pursuant to Rev. Page 16 of 18 Page 27 of 39

Guidelines section 15092, the City Council finds that in approving the Project it has eliminated or substantially lessened all significant and potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment where feasible, as shown in Sections A through D, above. The City Council further finds that it has balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project against the remaining unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the Project, and has determined that those benefits outweigh the unavoidable environmental risks and that those risks are acceptable. The City Council makes this statement of overriding considerations in accordance with section 15093 of the Guidelines in support of approval of the Project. Specifically, in the City Council s judgment, each of the benefits of the Project as proposed separately and independently outweigh all of the unmitigated adverse impacts and the Project should be approved. 1. The Natomas Crossing extension would be a large, costly public works project. Replacing the vehicular extension with a bicycle/pedestrian path and overcrossing would substantially reduce costs, which could then be used for other priority projects, and/or reduce fees, which would promote economic development in the North Natomas community. Eliminating costly infrastructure would support the General Plan objective of maintaining a vibrant economy. 2. The Project would enhance the neighborhood environment by providing a bike path in place of a vehicular roadway. A parkway with a bicycle/pedestrian path would be easier for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross than a 59-foot wide roadway, would increase bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between neighborhoods, and would be less noisy than a roadway. 3. The Project would reduce the potential for cut-through traffic through existing residential neighborhoods by eliminating a planned roadway along the Natomas Crossing Drive extension right-of-way. 4. The Project would be responsive to neighborhood and community input seeking increased exclusive pedestrian/bikeway access by eliminating vehicular traffic from a connection across the right-of-way of the future Snowy Egret Drive. 5. Eliminating vehicular traffic from the future overcrossing, providing a bicycle/pedestrian-only connection across Interstate 5 and converting an existing roadway to a bike and pedestrian trail would support the General Plan objectives for living more lightly, promoting healthy cities and a sustainable future by providing more direct routes for bicyclists and pedestrians with more local destinations. For example, the Project would provide a more direct route from many of the residences west of Duckhorn Drive and south of Arena Boulevard to Rev. Page 17 of 18 Page 28 of 39

the existing San Juan Reservoir Park to the east or the future commercial developments planned for the area between Duckhorn Drive and Interstate 5. 6. The Project would provide significant connectivity for the City and residents, bicyclists and pedestrians in the North Natomas Community Plan area, which would encourage and support additional non-vehicular trips by walking and bicycling and facilitates pedestrian and bicyclist access to transit. 7. Construction of the project would be consistent with Citywide goals and polices of increasing multimodal accessibility with an emphasis on walking and bicycling. 8. The Project would reduce impacts on the environment relative to the future Natomas Crossing extension. The Project would have a substantially smaller footprint than the Natomas Crossing extension, and would require less excavation. Therefore, the Project would have less potential to adversely affect biological, paleontological and cultural resources. Construction activities would be reduced, so construction-related air emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, erosion, water quality contaminants and noise would be lessened. For the reasons set forth above, the City Council finds that the ability of the Project to preserve enhance the neighborhood environment, improve pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, promote non-vehicular transportation, reduce potential impacts on natural resources, and contribute to a vibrant economy outweighs its environmental impacts. Rev. Page 18 of 18 Page 29 of 39

RESOLUTION NO. 2018- Adopted by the Sacramento City Council J a n u a r y 2 3, 2 0 1 8 AMENDI NG THE SACRAMENTO 2035 GENERAL PLAN MOBILITY ELEMENT AND THE NORTH NATOMAS COMMUNITY PLAN RELATING TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO PLANNED NORTH NATOMAS ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS BACKGROUND A. On January 11, 2018, the City Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing on, and forwarded to the City Council a recommendation of approval of amendments to the 2035 General Plan Mobility Element and the North Natomas Community Plan to incorporate changes in eliminating the planned roadway extension of Natomas Crossing Drive from East Commerce Way to El Centro Road. B. On January 23, 2018, the City Council conducted a public hearing that was noticed in accordance with Government Code section 65355 and Sacramento City Code section 17.812.030 at which it received and considered evidence concerning amendments to the 2035 General Plan Mobility Element and the North Natomas Community Plan to incorporate changes in eliminating the planned roadway extension of Natomas Crossing Drive from East Commerce Way to El Centro Road. BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Supplement to the 2035 General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR), which included the proposed changes to North Natomas roadway improvements, has been adopted by resolution as of the same date set out above. Section 2. The Sacramento 2035 General Plan identifies future road segments within the North Natomas Community, including the extension of Natomas Crossing Drive between East Commerce Way and El Centro Road. The General Plan is amended to eliminate this planned roadway extension to reduce the potential for cut-through traffic through existing residential neighborhoods as a response to neighborhood and community input and concerns. The project would also enhance the neighborhood environment by providing a parkway in place of a vehicular roadway that would be designed in a way to avoid removal of the existing community garden within the existing right of way, which is a community amenity located in the Natomas Crossing Extension right of way. These revisions in the Mobility Element and the Community Plan are described below and shown 1 Page 30 of 39

in Exhibits A, B, C, and D: a. The Mobility Element Figure M1, Level of Service Exception Areas is revised to remove the segment of Natomas Crossing Drive between East Commerce Way and El Centro Road, and to add the segments of Duckhorn Drive and San Juan Road that would operate at Level of Service (LOS) F. b. The Mobility Element Figure M3, Existing/Planned Heavy Rail Corridors, is revised to remove the segment of Natomas Crossing Drive between East Commerce Way and El Centro Road. c. The Mobility Element Figure M4, Citywide Circulation Diagram, is revised to remove the segment of Natomas Crossing Drive between East Commerce Way and El Centro Road. d. The North Natomas Community Plan Figure NN-4, Conceptual Transit Corridors Map, is revised to remove the segment of Natomas Crossing Drive between East Commerce Way and El Centro Road. Section 3. The Sacramento 2035 General Plan Mobility Element contains Policy M 1.2.2, which establishes level of services (LOS) standards for city streets. Section D of this policy identifies a list of roadways where LOS F is allowed because expansion of the roadways would cause undesirable impacts or conflict with other community values. Eliminating the planned Natomas Crossing Drive extension will redistribute traffic in the area resulting in increased congestion for segments of Duckhorn Drive and San Juan Road causing them to operate at LOS F. Because widening these roadways would result in undesirable community effects the affected roadway segments listed below are added to section D of Policy M 1.2.2: Duckhorn Drive: Arena Boulevard to San Juan Road San Juan Road: Duckhorn Drive to Truxel Road Section 4. The Sacramento 2035 General Plan as amended, complies with section 17.900.020.C of the Sacramento City Code in that the City Council finds the following: 1. The general plan is in full compliance with the applicable requirements of the Planning and Zoning Law and comprises a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the city and lands located outside of the territorial limits of the city that have a relation to its planning; 2. The general plan contains the substance of each of the state-mandated elements, to the extent that the subject of the element exists within the planning area; 3. The general plan comprises an integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies for the city relating to its physical development. 1 Page 31 of 39

Section 5. Exhibits A, B, C, and D are incorporated into and made part of this Resolution. Table of Contents: Exhibit A - Revised Sacramento 2035 General Plan, Mobility Element, Figure M1 Vehicle Level of Service Exception Areas Exhibit B - Revised Sacramento 2035 General Plan, Mobility Element, Figure M3 Existing/Planned Heavy Rail Corridors Exhibit C - Revised Sacramento 2035 General Plan, Mobility Element, Figure M4 Citywide Circulation Diagram Exhibit D Revised North Natomas Community Plan, Figure NN-4 Conceptual Transit Corridors Map 1 Page 32 of 39

Exhibit A 2 Page 33 of 39

Exhibit B Page 34 of 39

Exhibit C Page 35 of 39

Exhibit D Figure NN-4 Conceptual Transit Corridors Map Page 36 of 39

RESOLUTION NO. 2018- Adopted by the Sacramento City Council January 23, 2018 AMENDING THE CITY S BICYCLE MASTER PLAN TO MODIFY THE BICYCLE NETWORK IN THE NORTH NATOMAS COMMUNITY PLAN BACKGROUND A. The Supplement to the 2035 General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report, which is to be adopted concurrently with this resolution, is a comprehensive update of the 2035 General Plan. The traffic study that is contained in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the 2035 General Plan analyzed the changes in the street system and bikeways within the North Natomas Community Plan. B. On January 11, 2018, the City Planning and Design Commission conducted a public hearing on the Project and forwarded to the City Council recommendation to approve amending the City Bicycle Master Plan as set forth in Exhibit A. C. On January 23, 2018, the City Council conducted a public hearing that was noticed in accordance with Sacramento City Code sections 17.812.010 and 17.812.030 at which it received and considered evidence concerning the Proposed Changes to North Natomas Roadway Improvements project. BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Based on the verbal and documentary evidence received at the hearings on the Proposed Project, the City Council finds that amending the City Bicycle Master Plan to modify the bikeway network in the North Natomas Community Plan area is consistent with the City of Sacramento 2035 General Plan. The proposed changes support the general plan goal to create and maintain a safe, comprehensive, and integrated bicycle system and a set of support facilities throughout the city that encourage bicycling that is accessible to all. Applicable General Plan policies include the following: M4.2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities on Bridges. The City shall identify existing and new bridges that can be built, widened, or restriped to add pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities. M 5.1.3 Continuous Bikeway Network. The City shall provide a continuous bikeway network consisting of bike-friendly facilities connecting Page 37 of 39 residential neighborhoods with key destinations and activity centers

(e.g., transit facilities, shopping areas, education institutions, employment centers). M 5.1.5 Motorists, Bicyclists, and Pedestrian Conflicts. The City shall develop safe and convenient bikeways, streets, roadways, and intersections that reduce conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles on streets, between bicyclists and pedestrians on multi-use trails and sidewalks, and between all users at intersections Section 2. City Council hereby amends the City s Bicycle Master Plan to modify two components of the bicycle network as described below and set forth in Exhibit A: a. The Bicycle Master Plan is revised to remove the on-street bike lane from Natomas Crossing Drive between East Commerce Way and El Centro Road and replacing that on-street facility with an off-street bike path to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians, including an overcrossing of I-5. The Bikeway Master Plan will continue to include off-street at-grade bike path connections east of Duckhorn Drive and west of East Commerce Drive to the planned bike paths paralleling each side of I-5. b. The Bicycle Master Plan is revised to convert the Gibraltar Street/White Eagle Lane connection between Beretania Way and Windsong Street from a local street to a paved bicycle/pedestrian trail. Section 3. Exhibit A is part of this Resolution. Table of Contents: Exhibit A - Revised Map of the City s Bicycle Network Page 38 of 39

Exhibit A- Revised Map of the City's Bicycle Network Page 39 of 39