Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Greenbriar Development Project Sacramento, California SPHERE OF INFLUENCE State Clearinghouse Number 2005062144 Presented to Sacramento LAFCo September.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Greenbriar Development Project Sacramento, California SPHERE OF INFLUENCE State Clearinghouse Number 2005062144 Presented to Sacramento LAFCo September."— Presentation transcript:

1 Greenbriar Development Project Sacramento, California SPHERE OF INFLUENCE State Clearinghouse Number Presented to Sacramento LAFCo September 19, 2007

2 Presentation Topics  Project Description  Consistency with Blueprint  Public Services & Fiscal Analysis  EIR Process & Issues

3 Greenbriar Project Team SOI Applicant - City New Growth Manager, Scot Mende Public Improvements & Finance Manager, Mark Griffin Project Applicants North Natomas 575 Investors, LLC AKT Development Woodside Homes River West Investments Project Management Phil Serna, Serna Consulting Tina Thomas, RTM&M City Team Environmental, Tom Buford EDAW: Gary Jakobs & Amanda Olekzulin Parks, Mary deBeauvieres Dev. Engineering, Samar Hajeer Utilities

4  City’s SOI established 1981  Modified in ’90s to include adopted North Natomas Community Plan  No other significant SOI amendments  Greenbriar SOI initiated by City Council Nov 2005 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE

5 Location and Local Context Metro Air Park North Natomas Community Plan

6 Land Use Map

7 Project Description - Land Use Summary  577 acres  Northwest Corner of I-5/SR 70/99  Mixed Uses –2,991 mixed-density residential units –Proposed RT rail line and station –38.5 acres commercial development –41.9 acres public/private parks –Elementary school site –Open space/habitat corridor (58.2 acres)  Off-site biology mitigation: Spangler (245.2 ac); Natomas 130 (20.4 ac)

8 GREENBRIAR CONSISTENCYWITHBLUEPRINT

9  Within the SACOG Blueprint area  Comparison of growth projected for the Greenbriar site: – Blueprint  1,200 employees  4,200 dwelling units – Greenbriar proposal  1,016 employees  2,991 dwelling units Relationship to SACOG Blueprint

10 Blueprint Principles  Offer Transportation Alternatives  Offer Housing Variety  Encourage Compact Development  Provide Mixed Land Uses  Conserve Natural Resources  Implement Quality Design

11 Blueprint Principle: Offer Transportation Alternatives  Greenbriar accommodates the future DNA LRT extension and provides a mixed-use station site  Project design provides pedestrian friendly elements: –off-street pedestrian/bike paths –pedestrian paseos –alley-loaded residential units

12  There are currently no bus routes provided in the immediate area  1,162 LRT boardings (estimate from DNA EIR)  Dedication of 40’ wide ROW for the track area, 60’ x 400’ station area, 0.25 acre substation, and 2 acre park & ride area  Developer construction on LRT station - $2.2 million current estimated cost  Join North Natomas TMA – shuttle services as an interim mitigation measure (until LRT is operational) Transit Characteristics

13 Transit/Light Rail

14 Transit / Density Relationship

15 Blueprint Principle: Offer Housing Variety  Greenbriar offers thirteen different housing types, including: –low and medium density detached –cluster detached –townhomes  Proposed affordable housing plan meets City’s Mixed-income Housing Ordinance

16 Blueprint Principle: Encourage Compact Development  Greenbriar proposal meets and exceeds the average net density for the North Natomas Community Plan: –NNCP average net density = 10.5 du/na; –Greenbriar average net density = 11.5 du/na  Medium and high density housing in the Greenbriar proposal constitute a majority of the residential land uses; 11 to 30 du/na

17 Blueprint Principles: Provide Mixed Land Uses  The project proposes residential, recreational, institutional and commercial uses within the project site, adjacent to Metro Air Park  The project proposes a future light rail station and small mixed-use retail site at the center of the development

18 Blueprint Principles: Conserve Natural Resources  Applicant proposes a comprehensive strategy to address needs of special status species, including habitat buffer and numerous off-site habitat mitigation sites  Applicant developing habitat conservation plan and has completed an Effects Analysis to ensure future development project does not compromise Natomas Basin HCP

19 Blueprint Principle: Implement Quality Design  As a master-planned project, Greenbriar was able to benefit from the SACOG Blueprint project  Project entitlements include PUD Guidelines to specify urban design standards and to guide plan implementation relative to the Blueprint

20 PUBLIC SERVICES & UTILITIES  Services would be adequately provided by service agencies  SOI and annexation will be consistent with Master Services Element  Municipal Services Review prepared  Consultation with all public service and utility providers  Seeking amendment for SOI for SRCSD and CSD-1

21 Fire Services & Facilities  Citywide Fire Master Plan being prepared – draft Nov ’07 –Will address operations funding  Greenbriar pays $1.5 million towards new fire station  Current practice: –<4.5 minutes first response (90%) –<8 minutes paramedics (90%)

22

23 Police Services & Facilities  Citywide Police Master Plan being prepared – draft Nov ’07 –Will address operations funding  Greenbriar pays $0.8 million towards new police station (at Town Center)  Greenbriar pays $1.5 million towards radio communications tower

24 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS  City/County split of property taxes  City costs/revenue neutral  Citywide services paid from citywide resources – not exclusively Greenbriar  Park maintenance 100% funded through Services CFD

25 FINANCE PLAN  Pays for all water, sewer, drainage requirements, on-site roadway infrastructure  Freeway mainline improvements and LRT station  Open Space – including freeway buffer, parks, trails, and contribution toward regional park  Police & Fire facilities

26 GREENBRIAR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ISSUES Airport OverflightAirport Overflight Flood Hazards / Flood ProtectionFlood Hazards / Flood Protection TransportationTransportation Agriculture, Open Space, and HabitatAgriculture, Open Space, and Habitat

27 Project Description – Primary Entitlements  LAFCO –Amend Sphere of Influence for:  City, SRCSD and CSD-1 (Tonight’s hearing) –Annexation of Project Site to City, SRCSD, and CSD-1 (after City Council actions)  City of Sacramento –Annexation Related Actions –General Plan Amendment –Other Approval Actions  USFWS-Endangered Species Take Permit

28 EIR Process-Steps  Notice of Preparation: June 28/Re- issued July 13, 2005 (30 day review)  Draft EIR: Published July 19, 2006  Recirculated DEIR: Published November 14, 2006  Second RDEIR: Published April 10, 2007  Final EIR: Published August 17, 2007 –Responds to comments (environmental issues) on DEIR, RDEIR, and Second RDEIR

29 EIR Summary-Context  Site: agriculture  Surrounding land uses: –Metro AirPark –North Natomas Community –I-5 and SR 70/99 –Agriculture  Site near Sacramento International Airport; largely within aircraft overflight zone  Within boundaries of Natomas Basin HCP, but not within City Incidental Take Permit area  Along proposed DNA Light Rail line

30 EIR Summary-Scope –Transportation –Air quality –Noise –Utilities –Public Services –Parks/Open Space –Aesthetics –Public Health/Hazards –Geology/Soils –Hydrology/Water quality –Agriculture –Biology –Cultural Resources

31 Project Impacts  Cumulative impacts: public services - construction of new facilities (fire station, SRWTP) may result in impacts  Less-than-significant impacts with mitigation: utilities, public health and hazards, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, biological resources  Significant and unavoidable impacts: traffic, air quality, noise, agriculture, open space (partial offset), visual character, safety hazards (ALUC override), short-term flooding (if development occurs prior to 2010 when 100-year flood protection in place),

32 Aircraft Overflight Area

33 ALUC Determination  ALUC Determination Regarding Project Consistency with CLUP: –The Following Uses are Compatible with the CLUP and do not Require Override:  Residential and commercial uses based on the proposed project densities  Parks and open space (average of 25 people/acre/day not to exceed 50 people/acre/day)  Proposed water features (ALUC defers to airport)  Elementary school is outside of overflight zone and therefore not subject to ALUC review –Override:  Project’s provision for a light rail station in the overflight zone may possibly exceed 50/people/acre/day

34 Airport Noise Impact Summary  General Plan exterior noise standard at residential uses is 60 dBA CNEL –60 dBA CNEL aircraft noise contour associated with project are more than 1,900 feet away from western project boundary –Project defined as compatible with overall aircraft noise exposure and impact is less than significant –Noise would be less than 60 dBA CNEL even at maximum use conditions with 3 rd runway  No SENL standards have been established –Single event noise may exceed 60 dBA SENL –Impacts to residential uses will be less than significant –Impacts to schools mitigated to less than significant with design features to reduce interior school noise levels  Applicant is proposing to dedicate an overflight easement and record deed notices for purposes of disclosing potential airport noise.

35 Identified Flood Risks Inadequate freeboard Underseepage Levee encroachments Channel erosion

36 Flood Protection  Currently X Zone  USCOE 07/26/06 letter – identifies that levees are no longer certifiable  City letter to FEMA requesting A99  March 2008 FIRM re-designation  SAFCA anticipates 100-year protection by 2010  SAFCA anticipates 200-year protection by 2012  Defer construction to meet FEMA & any local land use regulations  Anticipate requesting building permit in 2010

37 Flood Legislation  SB5: Prohibits development for areas that don’t have by year 2015 –100-year flood protection –A plan for 200-year flood protection  AB70: Imposes liabilities on cities who are "unreasonable" in approving projects –Applies only to development applications submitted after 12/31/07

38 Flooding in Natomas Basin  DEIR identified less-than-significant impacts (published July 19, 2006)  USACE issued a letter stating it can no longer support certification of the levees (July 20, 2006)  Recirculated DEIR prepared identifying a significant and unavoidable short- term flooding impact

39 Flooding Impacts in Natomas Basin  FEMA currently determining which flood zone designation will apply to Natomas Basin  Mitigation: Require project applicants to comply with development requirements of appropriate flood zone designation and contribute to funding for necessary levee improvements  Significant and unavoidable flooding impact remains for an interim period if damageable structures are constructed prior to when all levee improvements for 100-year flood protection are completed  Post-2010: Less than Significant Flooding Impact

40 Transportation  Project would contribute to significant cumulative impacts on area freeways  Project includes dedication of light rail corridor and construction of transit station for Sacramento Regional Transit’s DNA line. The transit station is currently estimated at $2.4 million. RT will also be provided with the right-of-way over the project site at no cost.  Mitigation requires contribution to City’s Traffic Congestion Relief Fund to fund projects that would reduce freeway mainline congestion

41 Parks, Open Space, and Agriculture  Provides adequate park land (48.2 acres) to meet Quimby Act requirements  Provides publicly accessible detention basin and freeway buffer – creditable as Natomas Joint Vision Open Space  Results in loss of open space resources (546 acres) most of which are Important Farmland (518 acres)

42 Greenbriar in context w/ Natomas Basin Greenbriar

43 Effects on NBHCP  NBHCP covers numerous species –Giant garter snake (federal and state threatened) –Swainson’s hawk (state threatened)  Authorizes development on 17,500 acres  Requires mitigation: conservation/ enhancement on 8,750 acres (0.5:1)  Extensive analysis –Effects of Greenbriar on NBHCP conservation strategy –Consistency of Greenbriar with NBHCP Goals and Objectives –Effects on endangered and threatened species

44 NBHCP Conclusions in EIR  Project would develop 546 acres  30.6 acres would be preserved and enhanced on-site along Lone Tree Canal  acres would be preserved and enhanced at off-site reserves  48.2 acres is on-site open space  Additional 15.9-acre buffer proposed for preservation at West Lakeside

45

46 NBHCP Conclusions in EIR  An additional 49 acres of land is required to be preserved and managed for Swainson’s hawk (Mitigation )  TOTAL preserved and enhanced = 345 acres plus additional 15.9 acres for West Lakeside buffer  With mitigation, the project would not reduce the effectiveness of NBHCP’s conservation strategy nor reduce the likelihood of attaining the goals and objectives of the NBHCP resulting in less-than- significant impacts  LAFCo, City, and project applicant’s are in consultation with USFWS and CDFG. Applicant is preparing a separate project HCP and USFWS will prepare EIS.

47

48 Repeal Resolution  On July 24, 2001, the City Council approved a Resolution to temporarily establish restrictions on the approval of entitlements on 3 properties located outside of the City of Sacramento.  The three affected areas: –Camino Norte –West Lakeside –Greenbriar Farms  The Resolution will need to be repealed in order to allow the first-stage legislative entitlements to be approved for the Greenbriar project.


Download ppt "Greenbriar Development Project Sacramento, California SPHERE OF INFLUENCE State Clearinghouse Number 2005062144 Presented to Sacramento LAFCo September."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google