Full Text
Volume I: DRAFT EIR FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- FINAL EIR CERTIFICATION DATE: FEBRUARY 26, 2008 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION #2008-141 The revision bar shown on the left margin indicates material that has been revised or corrected to reflect changes from Volume II – Comments and Responses and to reflect changes made by City Council on February 26, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Turnstone Consulting, T160 i Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MASTER TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME I MODESTO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2008-141 I. I.1 II. SUMMARY III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION V. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS VI. ALTERNATIVES VI.1 VII. AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED VII.1 APPENDICES VOLUME II – COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I. I.1 II. LIST OF COMMENTORS ON THE DRAFT EIR III. COMMENTS AND IV. STAFF-INITIATED TEXT CHANGES AND ERRATA IV.1 V. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Turnstone Consulting, T160 ii Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT VOLUME I TABLE OF CONTENTS MODESTO CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2008-141 I. I.1 II. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION A. Land Use and B. Agricultural Resources C. Visual Resources D. Transportation and Circulation E. Air F. IV.F.1 G. Hazards H. Biological Resources I. Hydrology and Water IV.I.1 J. Geology, Soils and K. Community L. Utilities and Services M. Water Supply N. Population and V. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS VI. ALTERNATIVES VI.1 VII. AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED VII.1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure III.1: Project Location Figure III.2: Land Use Diagram (revised) Figure IV.D.1: Traffic Analysis Intersections (revised) Figure IV.I.1: Proposed Flood Control IV.I.5 Figure IV.J.1: Soil Survey of Eastern Stanislaus County, California (corrected) Figure IV.K.1: Fire Station Run Time Analysis – All Stations Figure IV.K.2: Fire Station Run Time Analysis – Stations 1, 5 and Figure IV.L.1: Wastewater Collection Figure IV.L.2: Location of Treatment Plants Figure IV.L.3: Wastewater Collection System Locations of Off site Improvements..........IV.L.20 Figure IV.L.4: Secondary Plant: Proposed Modifications That Would Serve the Tivoli Project and Near-Term Growth ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Turnstone Consulting, T160 iii Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Figure VI.1: Existing General Plan VI.4 Figure VI.2: Reduced Footprint Alternative VI.17 LIST OF TABLES Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table IV.E.1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Table IV.E.2: Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status for San Joaquin Table IV.E.3: Ambient Air Quality Data Summary, Modesto Table IV.E.4: Project Operational Emissions - Year Table IV.E.5: Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Table IV.F.1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels and IV.F.5 Table IV.F.2: County of Stanislaus Noise Element IV.F.7 Table IV.F.3: State Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise IV.F.9 Table IV.F.4: 2012 Future Traffic Noise Levels and Contours for Future Baseline and Baseline Plus Project IV.F.13 Table IV.F.5: 2017 Future Traffic Noise Levels and Contours for Future Baseline and Baseline Plus Project IV.F.15 Table IV.F.6: 2025 Future Traffic Noise Levels and Contours for Future Baseline and Baseline Plus Project IV.F.17 Table IV.F.7: Future Traffic Noise Levels and Contours for Future Baseline Plus IV.F.20 Table IV.L.1: Overview of Discharge Limitations for City of Table IV.M.1: Summary of City of Modesto Projected Water Supply and Table VI.1: Year 2017 Existing General Plan New Trip Generation VI.7 Table VI.2: Existing General Plan Alternative Operational Emissions – Year 2010 VI.12 Table VI.3: Year 2017 Reduced Footprint Alternative New Trip VI.20 Table VI.4: Reduced Footprint Alternative Operational Emissions – Year VI.24 APPENDICES A. Notice of Preparation and Initial Study B. Applicable Goals and Policies C. Tivoli Regional Commercial Report D.1 Traffic Impact Assessment for the Tivoli Specific Plan Project D.2 Traffic Alternatives Assessment D.3 Evaluation of Alternative Configurations for McReynolds Avenue within the Tivoli Specific Plan Area E. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study F. Water Supply Assessment Prepared for Tivoli Project G. Projected Wastewater Flows for the Tivoli Specific Plan Project Area ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Turnstone Consulting, T160 I.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE OF THE EIR This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared by the City of Modesto as Lead Agency, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., “CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”). The EIR has been prepared to address the potential impacts of a proposed Tivoli Specific Plan project located on 454 acres1 within the City of Modesto’s proposed Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District. The Tivoli Specific Plan would include about 286 acres of residential land use designation, totaling 3,241 residential dwelling units, 14 acres of neighborhood-serving commercial, 6 acres of general commercial, 67 acres of regional-serving commercial, 2 acres of professional office space, a 14- acre elementary school site, about 30 acres of parks and open space, 4 acres of public infrastructure, and about 31 acres of interior collector roadways within the Specific Plan area.2 The project also includes provisions to improve existing traffic and circulation conditions, with construction of new arterial and collector streets for better vehicular circulation and linkages to the existing circulation system and transit services. The project is proposed to be implemented in phases, with anticipated commencement in 2007 and buildout by approximately 2017. The approvals required for the project, listed in Chapter III, Project Description, address the entire project and all of its phases. The City has prepared this program-level EIR to provide the City Council, the public, and Responsible and Trustee Agencies under CEQA, with information about the project's potential effects on the environment. The City Council and various agencies with regulatory authority over the project will use this MEIR for the decision-making process. This EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (in California Code of Regulations, Title 14). B. CEQA PROCESS The City of Modesto is the Lead Agency for the preparation of this EIR, and has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the proposed project. An Initial Study and Notice of 1 The Tivoli Specific Plan area contains a total of 480 gross acres. This includes about 26 acres located within the future perimeter arterial streets rights-of-way, measured to the centerline of the streets. For the purposes of discussion in the Draft EIR, the net acreage total of 454 acres is used, except in the analyses found in Chapters IV.I, Hydrology and Water Quality; IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems (Wastewater); and IV.M, Water Supply. 2 Approximate acreage totals for the specific development area designations have been rounded off to the nearest whole number. ---PAGE BREAK--- I. Introduction Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Preparation of a Draft EIR were published by Modesto on July 21, 2005 and circulated for public information and review through local public libraries, the State Clearinghouse in Sacramento, at the City of Modesto Community and Economic Development Department, and direct mail to public agencies and interested individuals. A formal public scoping meeting was held at Chambers at the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County Administrative Building on August 8, 2005 to receive public input on the information that should be included in the Draft EIR. Written comments on the scope of the Draft EIR were also received from public agencies and interested individuals. The Draft EIR was published on October 12, 2006 and circulated for public review and comment for a period of 45 days, through November 27, 2006. After the close of the comment period, a Final EIR will be prepared that contains the comments and/or summaries of comments received, responses to those comments that raise environmental issues, and any revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to comments. The Modesto City Council will use the information in the Final EIR in its deliberations on the project and consider its conclusions in conjunction with other economic, social, community and other considerations as to whether the project should be approved as proposed, approved but modified, or rejected. The Final EIR, comprised of the Draft EIR, comments received, and responses to those comments, will be reviewed by the Modesto City Council for certification. The Council will certify the Final EIR when it believes the document to be accurate and complete. If the project is approved by the decision-makers, written findings will be prepared by the City of Modesto, as Lead Agency, for each significant impact identified in the EIR. These findings will identify each significant impact; determine whether the project has been changed to reduce significant impacts to less-than-significant levels; find that changes that would reduce significant impacts are within the jurisdiction of another public agency; or find that mitigation measures or alternatives that would reduce significant impacts are infeasible for identified legal, social, economic, technological or other reasons, as provided in Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. If significant unavoidable impacts remain after all feasible mitigation measures are imposed on the project, in order to approve the project decision-makers must adopt a written statement of overriding considerations explaining how they have balanced these significant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts against the benefits of the proposed project, based on all substantial evidence in the administrative record. All mitigation measures included in the project either by the Tivoli Specific Plan project sponsor, and all mitigation measures imposed as conditions of approval by decision-makers, will be listed in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP). Feasible mitigation measures that would reduce but not eliminate significant impacts are also identified. The MMRP will identify ---PAGE BREAK--- I. Introduction Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 who will be responsible for implementing each measure and include an implementation and reporting schedule. Following action by the City of Modesto, the EIR will be used by other Responsible Agencies (as defined in CEQA Section 21069) having jurisdiction over some aspect of the project, including the Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”), in their approval processes for the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 II. SUMMARY A. OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project provides for the consideration and adoption of a Specific Plan to act as a guide for the future mixed-use development of a 454-acre area1 known as the Tivoli Specific Plan. The Tivoli Specific Plan would include about 286 acres of residential land use designation, totaling 3,241 residential dwelling units, 14 acres of neighborhood-serving commercial, 6 acres of general commercial, 67 acres of regional-serving commercial, 2 acres of professional office space, a 14-acre elementary school site, about 30 acres of parks and open space, 4 acres of public infrastructure, and about 31 acres of interior collector roadways within the Specific Plan area.2 The project also includes provisions to improve existing traffic and circulation conditions, with construction of new arterial and collector streets for better vehicular circulation and linkages to the existing circulation system and transit services. Consideration and adoption of the Tivoli Specific Plan also includes consideration of the following actions: 1. Adoption of a General Plan Amendment that includes the following: To reclassify a portion of the project site from Village Residential (VR) to Regional Commercial (RC). To allow commercial development for the Village Residential designation in the Tivoli Specific Plan to exceed the recommended 4 percent. To allow for the Tivoli Specific Plan neighborhood center focus that combines a neighborhood park and elementary school. To reclassify Claratina Avenue from a four-lane Class B Expressway to a six-lane Principal Arterial with a Class I bike path from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue. To change Sylvan Avenue from a six-lane Principal Arterial to a four-lane Minor Arterial with bike lanes from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue. To include Class II bike lanes along Oakdale Road from Sylvan Avenue to Claribel Avenue. 1 The Tivoli Specific Plan area contains a total of 480 gross acres. This includes about 26 acres located within the future perimeter arterial streets rights-of-way, measured to the centerline of the streets. For the purposes of discussion in the Draft EIR, the net acreage total of 454 acres is used, except in the analyses found in Chapters IV.I, Hydrology and Water Quality; IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems (Wastewater); and IV.M, Water Supply. 2 Approximate acreage totals for the specific development area designations have been rounded off to the nearest whole number. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 To amend the Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District to allow the Tivoli Specific Plan to exceed the minimum recommended density of 5.1 units per gross acre. 2. Prezoning of the project site to a Specific Plan Overlay. 3. Annexation of the project site into the City of Modesto including approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission. 4. Adoption of a Facilities Master Plan and an Infrastructure Finance Plan for the Tivoli Specific Plan area. 5. Formation of a Community Facilities District to fund the construction of “backbone” public infrastructure, maintenance of applicable public facilities, and applicable public services. 6. Approval of a Development Agreement to guide development within the Tivoli Specific Plan area. 7. Subsequent entitlements, including abandonment of a portion of Mable Avenue, approval of Area Plans, Final Development Plans, tentative maps, Conditional Use Permits, and other City entitlement approvals. The Tivoli Specific Plan intends to provide the comprehensive master planning and orderly development of the Tivoli Specific Plan project site. The proposed project would be implemented in phases, with anticipated commencement in 2007 and buildout by approximately 2017. The project site is located in an unincorporated area of Stanislaus County, within the City of Modesto’s Sphere of Influence. B. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT An Initial Study and Notice of Preparation for the proposed project were published on July 21, 2005. A full copy of the NOP/IS can be found in Appendix A. On the basis of the Initial Study, the City of Modesto determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) was required. The Initial Study determined that the effects of the project in the following issue areas would either be insignificant or would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures included in the project and thus required no further analysis: mineral resources, cultural resources, and recreation. Therefore, these issues are not addressed in the EIR. As shown in Table II.1, a number of project impacts identified in the EIR were found to be less than significant, requiring no mitigation. These impacts are listed below and are further discussed in this document. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Introduce new land use designation and zoning districts in proximity to existing residential, commercial, and agricultural uses, creating the potential for land use compatibility conflicts. Introduce new residential, commercial, office, and school uses in proximity to ongoing agricultural operations, including the keeping of farm animals, creating the potential for land use compatibility conflicts; Burden continued agricultural operations surrounding the project site, and within the project site, prior to development under the proposed Specific Plan; Change the existing agricultural visual character of the project site; Require higher levels of outdoor lighting than surrounding residential development, creating the potential for glare on nearby residential properties; Locally contribute to elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide as a result of motor vehicle emissions; Cause sensitive receptors to be exposed to TACs as a result of emissions during project operation; Cause emissions of objectionable odors during project operation; Cause substantial noise increases for existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity as a result of increased project-related traffic; Cause release of hazardous materials, causing potential hazards to the public and environment as a result of demolition of existing buildings; Cause accidental release of hazardous materials as a result of transportation of contaminated soil and/or building materials removed from the project site; Result in loss of foraging habitat for White-tailed Kites and Northern Harriers; Result in loss of breeding and foraging habitat for Tricolored Blackbirds and Loggerhead Shrikes; Place housing in a FEMA-designated floodplain; Place new development within an area potentially subject to dam failure inundation; Result in depletion of groundwater resources due to implementation of the project; Cause an increased demand for Modesto Police Department officer hours due to the potential for increased on-site criminal activity and increased number of traffic incidents near the site; ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Result in an increase in emergency response call volumes which require an emergency response unit to arrive within six minutes; Cause insufficient water pressure for firefighting as a result of development of the commercial and high-density residential components of the proposed project with building heights over 30 feet; Create visual impacts from construction of several of the proposed collection system and treatment plant improvements; Impact traffic near the project site or near the Primary or Secondary Plants due to construction of the new wastewater collection and treatment facilities; Cause sensitive receptors to be exposed to toxic air contaminants from emissions during operation of the wastewater treatment facilities; Cause emissions of objectionable odors could occur during operation of the wastewater treatment facilities; Result in changes in local noise levels from construction and operation of the new wastewater facilities to support development on the Tivoli site; Expose workers and the public to accidental release of toxic gases due to increased use of chlorine and sulfur dioxide at the Secondary Plant; Generate additional solid waste by new, near-term wastewater treatment facilities; Result in surface water quality degradation due to pollutant loading associated with treated effluent discharges; Cause the City of Modesto to exceed its population projections from construction of the near-term tertiary treatment facilities that would provide wastewater treatment capacity for population growth; Increase the demand for potable water; Contribute to cumulative demand for potable water in the Modesto Water Service Area; Contribute substantially to the potential for regional cumulative demand to result in overdraft of groundwater supplies; Increase the number of jobs located within the City of Modesto which could affect the demand for housing; and Contribute to substantial growth in undeveloped areas and require extension of major infrastructure. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 C. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the areas affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance. Significance criteria are based on standards identified in CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, City and agency policy or regulation, and/or professional judgment. Implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts on some of these resources. The Initial Study and Notice of Preparation determined that the topics of land use and planning, agricultural resources, visual resources, traffic and circulation, air quality, noise, biological resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, public services, utilities and services systems, and population and housing were potentially significant and were to be included in this EIR. The EIR discusses mitigation measures that could be implemented by the City and/or project sponsors to reduce significant impacts to a less-than-significant level. Such mitigation measures are noted in this report and are found in Chapter IV, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation. D. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The alternatives to the Tivoli Specific Plan project analyzed in this EIR are: No Project Alternative: Under the No Project alternative, the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan would not be approved and development pursuant to the Specific Plan would not be constructed. The 454-acre project site would remain in agricultural, residential, and commercial uses under county land use designation and zoning. Existing General Plan Alternative: Under the Existing General Plan alternative, the 454- acre project site would be annexed into Modesto, and it would be developed pursuant to the Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District. Consistent with the CPD, the project site would be developed in accordance with the Village Residential (VR) land use designation, which allows mixed-use, compact, pedestrian and transit-oriented development. Development would include primarily single-family residential uses with multi-family and senior housing, commercial uses, schools, and parks uses. This alternative would allocate up to 436 acres of the project site for residential land use. This would result in construction of up to 2,315 new dwelling units on the site (5.1 units per total project site acreage), translating to a City of Modesto population increase of about 6,621 new people. Up to 4 percent, or 18 acres, of the project site, would be dedicated for commercial uses. Up to 274,428 square feet of existing and new commercial-related building area could be constructed on the project site. Up to 147,800 square feet of new commercial building area is estimated to be constructed since almost 50 percent is already developed with commercial and office uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Reduced Footprint Alternative: Under the Reduced Footprint alternative, the western half of the project site, about 234 acres, would be developed similar to the proposed project, but with fewer residential units. As with the proposed project, the Reduced Footprint alternative would include approximately 67 acres of Regional Serving Commercial (RSC). Approximately 167 acres would be designated Village Residential allowing a maximum of 854 residential dwelling units to be constructed. This would translate to a City population increase of about 2,442 persons. E. POTENTIAL AREAS OF CONCERN OR UNRESOLVED ISSUES Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the agency preparing an EIR to disclose any areas of controversy about the project that became known to it during the preparation of the EIR. Areas of controversy include the potential loss of agricultural land, biological resources, transportation and circulation, community services, and wastewater. F. SUMMARY TABLE Table II.1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures, summarizes the analyses contained in Chapter IV. Environmental impacts and their degree of significance are listed, followed by mitigation measures identified in this EIR and the level of significance after mitigation. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation Land Use A.1 The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan project would introduce a new land use designation and zoning districts in proximity to existing residential, commercial, and agricultural uses, creating the potential for land use compatibility conflicts. LS No mitigation necessary LS A.2 The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan project would introduce new residential, commercial, office, and school uses in proximity to ongoing agricultural operations, including the keeping of farm animals, creating the potential for land use compatibility conflicts. LS No mitigation necessary LS Agricultural Resources B.1 Implementation of the proposed project would directly result in the permanent loss of Prime Farmland. S B.1: Prior to any actual development in the Tivoli Specific Plan area, the City Council will consider creation of a farmland mitigation program to determine whether such a program could feasibly provide partial mitigation of the loss of prime farmland. (See p. IV.B.7 for more detail.) SU B.2 Development of the proposed project may burden continued agricultural operations surrounding the project site, and within the project site, prior to development under the proposed Specific Plan. LS No mitigation necessary LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation B.3 Implementation of the proposed project would incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of prime agricultural land in the Modesto area and in eastern Stanislaus County. S B.3: Same as Mitigation Measure B.1. (See p. IV.B.9 for more detail.) SU Visual Resources C.1 Development of the project would change the existing agricultural visual character of the project site. LS No mitigation necessary LS C.2 Proposed commercial development under the Tivoli Specific Plan would require higher levels of outdoor lighting than surrounding residential development, creating the potential for glare on nearby residential properties. LS No mitigation necessary LS Transportation and Circulation D.1 Construction and occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed project would result in significant impacts at study intersections adjacent to and near the project site in 2012. S D.1a Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue: Widen the intersection by adding a third northbound through lane and a third southbound through lane. (A second westbound left turn lane was placed into service on 3/23/06, after the transportation analysis was completed; therefore it was not assumed in the analysis.) Adjust signal timing to allow for overlap on all approaches. (See pp. IV.D.30-IV.D.31 for more detail.) SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.1b Claus Road at Milnes Road: Signalize the intersection. Add an exclusive northbound through lane to the intersection. The City shall establish a mechanism for developers to pay a fair share of the cost of these improvements. (See p. IV.D.31 for more detail.) SU D.1c Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue: Add a second eastbound left turn lane, a second northbound left turn lane, and a second southbound through lane. Adjust signal timing to allow for overlap on all approaches. (See p. IV.D.31 for more detail.) SU D.1d Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue: At 75 percent buildout of the Tivoli Specific Plan area, the City shall conduct a traffic study, to be funded by the project developers, to determine the adequacy of the roundabout as intersection traffic control. If the approach volumes exceed the roundabout capacity, the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.32 for more detail.) LS D.1e Coffee Road at Claribel Road: Widen the intersection by adding exclusive left- and right-turn lanes to the northbound and westbound approaches and two exclusive left- and right-turn lanes to the eastbound and westbound approaches. Convert shared lanes to exclusive through lanes at all four approaches and signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.32 for more detail.). SU D.1f Coffee Road at Mable Avenue: The City shall add exclusive westbound left and right turn lanes. (See pp. IV.D.32 for more detail.). LS D.1g Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue: Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. (See p. IV.D.33 for more detail.) SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.1h McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road (Clairbel Road becomes Kiernan Avenue west of McHenry Avenue): Add second left turn lanes on northbound and southbound approaches; add second and third through lanes on eastbound and westbound approaches. (See p. IV.D.33 for more detail.) SU D.1i McHenry Avenue and Claratina Avenue: Add third and fourth northbound and southbound through lanes. Add third eastbound and westbound through lanes. (See pp. IV.D.33 – IV.D.34 for more detail.) SU D.1j McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue: Add second northbound and southbound left turn lane; add fourth northbound and southbound through lanes. (See p. IV.D.34 for more detail.) SU D.1k Oakdale Road at Claribel Road: Add a second northbound exclusive left turn lane and second southbound through lane; add second and third eastbound and westbound through lanes. (See pp. IV.D.34 – IV.D.35 for more detail.) SU D.1l Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue: The project developers shall add a second southbound through lane. (See p. IV.D.35 for more detail.) LS D.1m Oakdale Road at Morrill Avenue: Add exclusive southbound and northbound left turn lanes. Signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.35 for more detail.) SU D.1n Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue: The project developers shall add a second eastbound left lane and third southbound through lane. (See p. IV.D.36 for more detail.) LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.1o Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue: Add second eastbound and westbound through lanes. This measure was placed into service 3/26/06, after the transportation analysis was completed; therefore this mitigation measure is no longer necessary. LS D.1p Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive: Add northbound and southbound exclusive left- and right-turn lanes, and signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.36 for more detail.) SU D.1q Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road: Add exclusive left turn lanes on all approaches to the intersection. Add northbound and southbound exclusive right turn lanes. Add a second, exclusive through lane on eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection. (See p. IV.D.36 – IV.D.37 for more detail.) SU D.1r Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road: Add exclusive left turn lanes at all four approaches to the intersection. Add a second eastbound through lane, and signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.37 for more detail.) SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.2 Construction and occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed project would result in significant impacts on roadway segments adjacent to and near the project site in 2012. S D.2 To mitigate the roadway impacts it would be necessary to widen all three roadways. The measures listed below are generally less extensive than would be required to achieve LOS D using the roadway LOS methodology of volume-to-capacity ratio alone. However, the controlling factor in roadway congestion is the intersection at any approach. Therefore, when the intersection operates adequately or mitigation measures have been identified to improve intersection operation to acceptable levels, the mitigation measures for significant impacts to roadway segments have been sized to match the through lanes on the intersection approaches. Note that while it would be sufficient to improve Claratina Avenue to a three-lane signalized expressway (two lanes eastbound and one lane westbound) between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road, because City of Modesto standards do not include a three-lane arterial, a four-lane facility is included in the mitigation measures. LS D.2a Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road: The project developers shall add a second eastbound lane and a second westbound lane. (See p. IV.D.38 for more detail.) LS D.2b Sylvan Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Road: The project developers shall add a second westbound lane. (See p. IV.D.38 for more detail.) LS D.2c Oakdale Road between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue: The project developers shall improve the southbound direction to three lanes between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue. (Improvements to the northbound direction to three lanes are assumed to be part of the project, to be implemented by project developers, and therefore do not need to be identified in this mitigation measure.) (See p. IV.D.38 for more detail.) LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.3 Buildout of the proposed project would result in significant impacts at study intersections adjacent to and near the project site in 2017. S D.3a Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue: Add second northbound and southbound left turn lanes; add separate eastbound and westbound right turn lanes. (See p. IV.D.45 for more detail.) LS D.3b Claus Road at Claribel Road: Add second southbound through lane; add second northbound left turn lane; add second eastbound right turn lane; and add second westbound through lane. The City shall create a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements. (See pp. IV.D.45 – IV.D.46 for more detail.) SU D.3c Claus Road at Floyd Avenue: Add second northbound and southbound through lanes; add second northbound left turn lane. (See p. IV.D.46 for more detail.) SU D.3d Claus Road at Milnes Road: Add second northbound and southbound through lanes and signalize the intersection. The City shall establish a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the cost of infrastructure improvements. (See p. IV.D.46 – IV.D.47 for more detail.) SU D.3e Claus Road at Plainview Road: Add southbound and northbound exclusive left-turn lanes and a second northbound and southbound through lane. Signalize the intersection. The City shall establish a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the cost of intersection improvements. (See p. IV.47 for more detail.) SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.3f Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue: Add second eastbound right turn lane. (See pp. IV.D.47 – IV.D.48 for more detail.) SU D.3g Coffee Road at Claratina Road: Implement Mitigation Measure D.1d, to conduct a traffic study at 75 percent buildout, to be funded by project developers, to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. As with Measure D.1d, if the approach volumes exceed the roundabout capacity, the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.48 for more detail.) LS D.3h Coffee Road at Claribel Avenue: Convert existing lanes to exclusive through lanes. Add second exclusive through lane in the southbound direction and second and third exclusive through lanes in the eastbound and westbound directions. Add one exclusive southbound left turn lane and two exclusive left turn lanes for the westbound, northbound and eastbound directions. Add exclusive right-turn lanes at all four approaches to the intersection. Signalize the intersection, and implement overlap phasing for the northbound right turn lane. (See pp. IV.D.48-IV.D.49 for more detail.) SU D.3i Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue: Add exclusive southbound, eastbound and westbound right turn lanes. (See p. IV.D.49 for more detail.) SU D.3j McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road (Claribel Road becomes Kiernan Avenue west of McHenry Avenue): Add second left turn lanes on eastbound and westbound approaches; add third through lane on northbound and southbound approaches; and add fourth through lane on westbound approach. (See pp. IV.D.49-IV.D.50 for more detail.) SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.15 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.3k McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue: Add second left turn lane on all approaches; add exclusive right turn lane on northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches; change signal timing to overlapping phasing on all approaches. (See p. IV.D.50 for more detail.) SU D.3l McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue: The City of Modesto will add a third eastbound through lane and a third westbound through lane. (See p. IV.D.50 for more detail.) LS D.3m Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way: The project developers shall provide an exclusive eastbound right turn lane with signal overlap. (See p. IV.D.50 for more detail.) LS D.3n Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue: Add third eastbound and westbound through lanes. Implement overlapping signal phasing on the northbound, westbound, and eastbound approaches. (See p. IV.D.51 for more detail.) SU D.3o Oakdale Road at Morrill Road: Implement Measure D.1m. (See p. IV.D.51 for more detail.) SU D.3p Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue: The project developers shall add a third northbound through lane. The project developers shall fund actions by the City to change signal timing, implementing overlap phasing on the eastbound approach. (See p. IV.D.51 for more detail.) LS D.3q Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive: Implement Measure D.1p. (See pp. IV.D.51 – IV.D.52 for more detail.) SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.16 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.3r Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road: Add one exclusive left turn lane on the northbound and southbound approaches and two exclusive left turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection. Add a second exclusive through lane on the southbound approach and second and third exclusive through lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches. Add exclusive right turn lanes on all approaches. Signalize the intersection. (See pp. IV.D.52 for more detail.) SU D.3s Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C: The project developers shall implement Mitigation Measure D.1d, to fund a traffic study at 75 percent buildout to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. As with Measure D.1d, if the approach volumes exceed the roundabout capacity, the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. (See pp. IV.D.52 – IV.D.53 for more detail.) LS D.3t Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road: Add second through lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches. Add exclusive left turn lanes on all approaches. Signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.53 for more detail.) SU D.4 Buildout of the proposed project would result in significant impacts on roadway segments adjacent to and near the project site in 2017. S D.4 Claratina Avenue from McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road: Implement Mitigation Measure D.2a to add a second eastbound lane and a second westbound lane. (See pp. IV.D.53 - 54 for more detail.) LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.17 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.5 The project would contribute to significant impacts at study intersections adjacent to and near the project site in 2025. S D.5a Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue: Add a second eastbound and third westbound through lane and a second southbound right turn lane. Add a second eastbound and third westbound through lane and a second southbound right turn lane. (A second westbound left turn lane was placed into service on March 23, 2006, after the transportation analysis was completed.) (See p. IV.D.60 for more detail.) SU D.5b Claus Road at Claribel Road: Add a second left turn lane on the northbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches; add a third through lane on the southbound and westbound approaches. Provide a free right turn lane on the eastbound approach; provide a second southbound right turn lane. The City shall establish a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements. (See p. IV.D.61 for more detail.) SU D.5c Claus Road at Floyd Avenue: Add second exclusive left turn lanes on all approaches; add second eastbound through lane and second and third northbound, southbound and westbound through lanes; add second eastbound and westbound right turn lanes; operate all right turns with overlap signal phasing. (See pp. IV.D.61 – IV.D.62 for more detail.) SU D.5d Claus Road at Milnes Road: Add two exclusive southbound through lanes and a second and third exclusive southbound lanes. Signalize the intersection. The City shall establish a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements. (See p. IV.D.62 for more detail.) SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.18 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.5e Claus Road at Plainview Road: Add exclusive left turn lanes at all approaches to the intersection. Add second and third exclusive through lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches. Signalize the intersection. The City shall establish a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the improvements. (See pp. IV.D.62 – IV.D.63 for more detail.) SU D.5f Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue: Add a third southbound through and a separate southbound right turn lane. Add a second eastbound left turn lane and provide a free eastbound right turn lane. (See p. IV.D.63 for more detail.) SU D.5g Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue: Implement Mitigation Measure D.1d, to conduct a traffic study, at the project developers’ expense at 75 percent buildout to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. As with Measure D.1d, if the approach volumes exceed the roundabout capacity, the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.63 – IV.D.64 for more detail.) LS D.5h Coffee Road at Claribel Avenue: Add three exclusive left turn lanes on the northbound approach and two exclusive left turn lanes at the other three approaches. Add second northbound and southbound through lanes and 3 additional through lanes at the eastbound and westbound approaches. Add exclusive right turn lanes on all approaches. Signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.64 for more detail.) SU D.5i Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue: Add exclusive southbound, eastbound, and westbound right turn lanes. (See p. IV.D.64 for more detail.) SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.19 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.5j McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road (Claribel Road becomes Kiernan Avenue west of McHenry Avenue): Require a Grade Separated Interchange or Split Diamond. (See p. IV.D.65 for more detail.) SU D.5k McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue: Require a Grade Separated Interchange or Spilt Diamond. (See p. IV.D.65 for more detail.) SU D.5l McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue: Add a fourth through lane on eastbound and westbound approaches; provide right turn lanes on northbound and westbound approaches. (See p. IV.D.66 for more detail.) SU D.5m Oakdale Avenue at Bridgewood Way: The project developers shall provide an exclusive eastbound right turn lane with signal overlap. (See p. IV.D.66 for more detail.) LS D.5n Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue: Provide third and fourth northbound lanes; provide a fourth southbound through lane; provide a separate southbound right turn lane. (See pp. IV.D.66 – IV.D.67 for more detail.) SU D.5o Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue: The project developers shall add a second southbound left turn lane and second right turn lanes in the southbound and eastbound directions. Add fourth northbound and westbound, and third and fourth southbound through lanes. Add a third northbound left turn lane. (See p. IV.D.67 for more detail.) SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.20 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.5p Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue: The project developers shall add third eastbound and westbound through lanes. The project developers shall add a separate right turn lane on northbound and southbound approaches and provide funding support for the City to implement overlap signal phasing on eastbound right turn lanes. Add fourth northbound and southbound through lanes. (See p. IV.D.67 for more detail.) SU D.5q Oakdale Road at Morrill Road: Add exclusive left- and right-turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches. Add a second exclusive southbound through lane. Signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.68 for more detail.) SU D.5r Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive: Implement mitigation measure D.1p. (See p. IV.D.68 for more detail.). SU D.5s Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road: Add exclusive left turn lanes to the northbound and southbound approaches, and add two exclusive left turn lanes to the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection. Add one additional exclusive through lane to the northbound and southbound approaches and three additional exclusive through lanes to the eastbound and westbound approaches. Add exclusive right turn lanes to all approaches with overlap signal phasings, and signalize the intersection. (See pp. IV.D.68 – IV.D.69 for more detail.) SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.21 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation D.5t Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C: At 75 percent build-out, the City shall conduct a traffic study, funded by project developers, to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. As with Measure D.1d, if the approach volumes exceed the roundabout capacity, the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.69 – IV.D.70 for more detail.) LS D.5u Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road D: At 75 percent build-out, the City shall conduct a traffic study, funded by the project developers, to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. As with Measure D.1d, if the approach volumes exceed the roundabout capacity, the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.69 for more detail.) LS S D.5v Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road: Add exclusive left-turn lanes on all approaches to the intersection. Add two additional through lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches. Signalize the intersection. (See p. IV.D.69 for more detail.). SU D.6 Buildout of the proposed project, in combination with other cumulative growth in the Modesto General Plan area, would result in significant impacts on roadway segments adjacent to and near the project site in 2025. S D.6: The project developers shall add a second eastbound and westbound lane on Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road. (See p. IV.D.70 for more detail.) LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.22 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation Air Quality E.1 Emissions of criteria pollutants during project construction would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. S E.1: The construction plans for each group of building permits shall incorporate recommendations from the District to minimize emissions during construction phases. (See pp. IV.E.18-IV.E.19 for more detail.) SU E.2 Emissions of criteria pollutants during project operation would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. S E.2a: The site design shall fulfill requirements to reduce emissions from motor vehicle activity: (See p. IV.E.22 for more detail.) E.2b: The project developers shall prepare a trip reduction plan to reduce emissions from motor vehicle activity. (See pp. IV.E.22- IV.E.23 for more detail.) E.2c: The site design shall fulfill requirements to reduce emissions from energy consumption. (See p. IV.E.23 for more detail.). SU E.3 Motor vehicle emissions would locally contribute to elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide. LS No mitigation necessary LS E.4 Emissions during project operation would cause sensitive receptors to be exposed to TACs. LS No mitigation necessary LS E.5 Emissions of objectionable odors could occur during project operation. LS No mitigation necessary LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.23 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation E.6 The project would cause a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley is designated as nonattainment. S E.6: See mitigation measures listed under Impacts E.1 and E.2. (See pp. IV.E.18-IV.E.19 and IV.E.22-IV.E.23 for more detail.) SU E.7 The proposed project, including annexation of the proposed parcels to the City of Modesto and changes to adopted community plans, could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ozone and PM10 attainment plans. S E.7: See mitigation measures listed under Impact E.2. (See pp. IV.E.22-E.23 for more detail.). SU Noise F.1 Increased project-related traffic could cause substantial noise increases for existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. LS F.1: No mitigation necessary (see Cumulative Impacts for additional information). LS F.2 Future traffic could cause substantial noise levels for sensitive receptors in the Tivoli Specific Plan area. S F.2a: Design and implement new barriers for noise control at exterior locations of proposed residential development adjacent to major roadways. (See pp. IV.F.20-IV.F.21 for more detail.) F.2b: Provide shielding for outdoor use areas by locating these areas behind buildings adjacent to major roadways. (See p. IV.F.21 for more detail.) LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.24 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation F.3 New stationary sources of noise associated with the proposed project could generate noise levels incompatible with ordinances or goals for the surroundings. S F.3: Each development project that involves commercial uses or multi-family residential buildings that would include outdoor mechanical equipment shall retain an acoustical engineer and implement noise reduction measures if necessary. (See p. IV.F.22 for more detail.) LS F.4 Non-stationary sources of noise associated with the proposed project could generate noise levels incompatible with ordinance or goals for the surroundings. S F.4: A qualified acoustical engineer shall be retained to review the site plans and building designs for proposed commercial activities when located adjacent to sensitive residential or educational land uses. (See pp. IV.F.25- IV.F.26 for more detail.) LS F.5 Cumulative development could lead to noise conflicts between incompatible land uses. S No mitigation available. SU Hazards G.1 Demolition of existing buildings could cause release of hazardous materials, causing potential hazards to the public and environment. LS No mitigation necessary LS G.2 Excavation for installation of utilities and other construction on the project site could encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater and expose workers and the public to hazardous substances. S G.2: Conduct remaining Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, conduct site investigations and implement remediation as necessary. (See pp. IV.G.8-IV.G.9 for more detail.) LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.25 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation G.3 Transportation of contaminated soil and/or building materials removed from the project site could result in accidental release of hazardous materials. LS No mitigation necessary LS Biological Resources H.1 Implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan could result in loss of foraging habitat for White-tailed Kites and Northern Harriers. LS No mitigation necessary LS H.2 Implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan could result in loss of breeding and foraging habitat for Tricolored Blackbirds and Loggerhead Shrikes. LS No mitigation necessary LS H.3 Implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan would result in loss of wetland habitat. S H.3: When wetland habitat cannot be avoided, any reduction in the 2.51 acres of wetlands will be compensated for, at a minimum ratio of 1:1, by the project proponents by implementing one of the four mitigation alternatives described in the Department of Fish and Game Recommended Wetland Definition, Mitigation Strategies, and Habitat Value Assessment Methodology: In-kind, On-site; In-kind, Off-site; Out-of-kind, On-site; or Out-of-kind, Off-site. (See p. IV.H.15 for more detail.). LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.26 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation H.4 Implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan could disturb nesting Swainson’s Hawks. S H.4: Pre-construction surveys to avoid nest disturbance. (See pp. IV.H.15-IV.H.16 for more detail.) LS H.5 Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in loss of Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat. S H.5: Compensation for loss of foraging habitat. (See pp. IV.H.16- IV.H.17 for more detail.) LS H.6 Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in loss of occupied Burrowing Owl habitat. S H.6a: Implementation of formal CDFG guidelines to avoid and minimize impacts to Burrowing Owls. (See pp. IV.H.18-IV.H.19 for more detail.) H.6b: Compensation for loss of Burrowing Owl habitat. (See p. IV.H.19 for more detail.) LS H.7 Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in cumulative loss of Swainson’s Hawk and Burrowing Owl habitat. S H.7: Same as Mitigation Measures H.3, H.4, H.5, and H.6. (See pp. IV.H.15-IV.H.19 for more detail.) LS Hydrology and Water Quality I.1 Construction activities could result in degradation of water quality in nearby surface water bodies by causing accidental spills and/or by reducing the quality of storm water runoff. S I.1: The project proponent shall prepare a for each development project under the specific plan (or one Master for all development) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction period of all of the project components (whether or not the particular portion of the project disturbs more than one acre). The shall emphasize measures designed to minimize erosion and off-site sedimentation. (see pp. iv.i.11-.iv.i.12 for more detail.) LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.27 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation I.2 Operation-phase use of the site could result in degradation of water quality in receiving waters by reducing the quality of storm water runoff. S I.2: The City shall ensure that development under the proposed project meets all the requirements of the current Municipal NPDES Permit (NPDES Permit No. R5-2003-0132 as amended by Order No. R5-2002-0182) for operation-phase water quality treatment. (See pp. IV.I.13-IV.I.14 for more detail.) LS I.3 Implementation of the project could alter drainage patterns at the site potentially exceeding the capacity of existing conveyances and causing localized flooding. S I.3a: As a condition of approval of the final grading and drainage plans for the first project proposed in the plan area, the developer must acquire written approval from the MID to discharge runoff to the MID Main Canal (up to 5.0 cfs), and provide this documentation to the City of Modesto Public Works Department. (See p. IV.I.15 for more detail.) I.3b: As a condition of approval of the final grading and drainage plans for all projects proposed within the plan area it must be demonstrated through detailed hydraulic analysis that implementation of the proposed drainage plans will be adequately sized, include drainage improvements in compliance with City standards, and establish funding mechanism and annual inspections. (See pp. IV.I.15-IV.I.16 for more detail.) LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.28 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation I.4 Implementation of the project could place people and housing within an area subject to sheet flooding. S I.4: The Tivoli Specific Plan project proponent shall: Design and construct the proposed on-site development so that the sheetflow flooding generated from the upstream watershed that can occur in the region will be safely passed through the proposed development. These flows shall be contained within the streets and be dispersed on the side of the project site in a manner that does not concentrate or increase the flows, ensuring that the potential for increased erosion or flooding is minimized. Ensure that finished floor elevations of all residential, commercial, and industrial structures be a minimum of one foot above the elevation of 100-year sheetflood. Contribute their fair share of the cost to design and construct the proposed northeast flood control solution. (See pp. IV.I.16- I.IV.17 for more detail.) LS I.5 Implementation of the proposed project could place housing in a FEMA-designated floodplain. LS No mitigation necessary LS I.6 Implementation of the proposed project could place new development within an area potentially subject to dam failure inundation. LS No mitigation necessary LS I.7 Implementation of the project could result in depletion of groundwater resources. LS No mitigation necessary LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.29 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation I.8 Existing water supply wells within the Specific Plan area, if not properly managed or decommissioned, could be damaged during construction, potentially allowing impacts to groundwater quality. S I.8: Prior to approval of a grading plan for development of a particular parcel of the Specific Plan area, a well survey shall be conducted to determine the location and characteristics of each well for that particular parcel. (See pp. IV. I.18-IV.I.19 for more detail.) LS Geology, Soils, and Seismicity J.1 Structures or property at the project could be adversely affected by expansive soils or by settlement of project soils. S J.1: In locations underlain by expansive soils and/or non-engineered fill, the designers of foundations and improvements (including sidewalks, roads, and utilities) shall consider these conditions. (See p. IV.J.7 for more detail.) LS J.2 Differential settlement at the project site could result in damage to project buildings and other improvements. S J.2: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a site-specific grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City Building Department for review and approval. The plan shall include specific recommendations for mitigating potential settlement associated with fill placement and areas of different fill thickness. (See p. IV.J.8 for more detail.) LS Community Services K.1 Development of the proposed project site would result in an increased demand for Modesto Police Department officer hours due to the potential for increased on-site criminal activity and increased number of traffic incidents near the site. LS No mitigation necessary LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.30 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation K.2 Development of the proposed project site would result in an increase in emergency response call volumes which require an emergency response unit to arrive within six minutes. LS No mitigation necessary LS K.3 Development of the proposed project site would result in an increase in full alarm call volumes which require an effective response force to arrive within ten minutes. S K.3: Prior to development of the northeast area of the Tivoli Specific Plan, project developers must provide the necessary funding for the construction of a Modesto Fire Department Fire Station to house an engine company and a truck company. (See pp. IV.K.14-IV.K.16 for more detail.) LS K.4 Development of the commercial and high-density residential components of the proposed project with building heights over 30 feet could result in insufficient water pressure for firefighting. LS No mitigation necessary LS Utilities and Services Systems L.1 The City's wastewater collection system would not have adequate capacity to serve the project. S L.1 Prior to or concurrent with development, the project sponsors and any project applicants for future development in the Tivoli Specific Plan area shall install all on-site collection system improvements which are necessary to serve the development. (See p. IV.L.28 for more detail.) LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.31 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation L.2 The project would generate wastewater in excess of the near-term disposal capacity for treated effluent from the Secondary Plant. S L.2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicants will be required to contribute toward their fair share of the required wastewater treatment and disposal facilities through payment of future capacity charges, as adopted by the City, or through an equivalent funding measure. (See pp. IV.L.29- IV.L.30 for more detail.). SU L.3 Implementation of the near-term tertiary treatment facilities at the Secondary Plant would directly result in the permanent loss of Prime Farmland S L.3 Same as Mitigation Measure B.1. (See p. IV.B.7 for more detail.) SU L.4 Construction of several of the proposed collection system and treatment plant improvements could have visual impacts at their locations. LS No mitigation necessary LS L.5 Construction of the new wastewater collection and treatment facilities could impact traffic near the project site or near the Primary or Secondary Plants. LS No mitigation necessary LS L.6 Emissions of criteria pollutants during construction of wastewater system improvements would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. S L.6 Implement Mitigation Measure E.1 in the air quality section of this EIR, except that where Mitigation Measure E.1 indicates "project developers," substitute "City of Modesto." (See p. IV.L.34 for more detail.) SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.32 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation L.7 Emissions of criteria pollutants during operation of the proposed wastewater system improvements would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. S L.7 The City shall abide by permit limits imposed by the SJVAPCD to reduce pollutant emissions from diesel-powered engines for emergency power generation. (See p. IV.L.36 for more detail.) SU L.8 Emissions during project operation could cause sensitive receptors to be exposed to toxic air contaminants. LS No mitigation necessary LS L.9 Emissions of objectionable odors could occur during project operation. LS No mitigation necessary LS L.10 Construction and operation of the new wastewater facilities to support development on the Tivoli site would result in changes in local noise levels. LS No mitigation necessary LS L.11 Excavation for installation of wastewater system improvements could encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater and expose workers and the public to hazardous substances. S L.11 Prior to excavation for construction for the improvements to the wastewater collection and treatment systems for near-term development, the City shall use reasonable means to determine the presence of soil or groundwater contamination. (See p. IV.L.39 for more detail.) LS L.12 Increased use of chlorine and sulfur dioxide at the Secondary Plant could expose workers and the public to accidental release of toxic gases. LS No mitigation necessary LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.33 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation L.13 Additional solid waste would be generated by new, near-term wastewater treatment facilities. LS No mitigation necessary LS L.14 Impacts to Biological Resources and Regulated Habitats of Dry Creek and Tuolumne River. S L.14. Pre-Construction Surveys and Agency Coordination. (See pp. IV.L.44- IV.L.45 for more detail.) LS L.15 Loss of Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat. S L.15. Implement Mitigation Measure H.4 and Mitigation Measure H.5. (See pp. IV.H.15-IV.H.17 for more detail.) LS L.16 Loss of Occupied Burrowing Owl Habitat. S L.16. Implement Mitigation Measures H.6a and H.6b. (See pp. .IV.H.18-IV.H.19 for more detail.) LS L.17 Disturbance of Nesting Raptors. S L.17. Implement Mitigation Measure H.4. (See pp. IV.H.15- IV.H.16 for more detail.) LS L.18 Impacts to Regulated Habitats Associated with Improvements to the Secondary Plant. S L.18a. Microtunnel under slough near 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment. (See pp. IV.L.47-IV.L.48 for more detail.) L.18b. Pre-Construction Surveys and Agency Coordination. (See pp. IV.L.47-IV.L.48 for more detail.) LS L.19 Construction activities could result in degradation of water quality by reducing the quality of storm water runoff. S L.19. The City shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction period of the wastewater system components (whether or not the particular portion of the project disturbs more than one acre). (See p. IV.L.49 for more detail.) LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.34 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation L.20 Implementation of the proposed project may result in surface water quality degradation due to pollutant loading associated with treated effluent discharges. LS No mitigation necessary. LS L.21 The Tivoli Lift Station, Sonoma Trunk extension, and smaller collector pipes in the Specific Plan area could be adversely affected by expansive soils or by settlement of project soils. S L.21. In locations underlain by expansive soils and/or non- engineered fill, the designers of the Tivoli Lift Station and sewer pipes shall consider these conditions. (See p. IV.L.51 for more detail.) LS L.22 Differential settlement at the project site could result in damage to wastewater system improvements. S L.22. Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each development site in the Tivoli Specific Plan area, a site-specific grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. (See pp. IV.L.51 - IV.L.52 for more detail.) LS L.23 Extension of the Sonoma Trunk and construction of the collection system improvements would provide wastewater collection capacity for population growth that could cause the City to exceed its population projections. S No mitigation available. SU ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.35 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation L.24 Construction of the near-term tertiary treatment facilities would provide wastewater treatment capacity for population growth that could cause the City to exceed its population projections. LS No mitigation necessary. LS L.25 The City's wastewater collection and treatment system would not have adequate capacity to serve the project, along with anticipated cumulative development. S L.25. Implement Mitigation Measures L.1 and L.2. (See pp. IV.L.56- IV.L.57 for more detail.) SU L.26 Implementation of the proposed project would incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of prime agricultural land in the Modesto area and in eastern Stanislaus County. S L.26. Same as Mitigation Measure B.3. (See p. IV.B.9 for more detail.) SU L.27 The wastewater treatment facilities would cause a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley is designated as nonattainment. S L.27. See mitigation measures listed under Impact E.2. (See pp. IV.E.22-IV.E.23 for more detail.) SU L.28 Cumulative Loss of Swainson’s Hawk and Burrowing Owl Habitat. S L.28 See mitigation measures listed under Impact L.15 and L.16. (See pp. IV.H.15-IV.H.19 for more detail.) LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.36 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation Water Supply M.1 Implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan could increase the demand for potable water. LS No mitigation necessary LS M.2 Demand from the project would cause low water pressure problems within65 the City’s water system. S M.2. In order to maintain adequate water pressure in the City’s delivery system, it would be necessary to install two new wells that would have a combined capability to meet or exceed the project’s peak-hour demand of 2,160 gallons per minute and maximum-day demand of approximately 6.57 af/day. One well must be fully developed and operational by the time of the initial project development. The second well must be provided and operational during the second phase of development or as determined by the City of Modesto. (See pp. IV.M.15-IV.M.16 for more detail.) LS M.3 Development of the proposed project could contribute to cumulative demand for potable water in the Modesto Water Service Area. LS No mitigation necessary LS M.4 Development of the proposed project would not contribute substantially to the potential for regional cumulative demand to result in overdraft of groundwater supplies. LS No mitigation necessary LS ---PAGE BREAK--- II. Summary LS = Less than Significant S = Significant SU = Significant and Unavoidable Turnstone Consulting, T160 II.37 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table II.1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Impact Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measure(s) Level of Significance After Mitigation Population and Housing N.1 Development of the proposed project would directly induce population growth that could cause the City to exceed its population projections. S No mitigation available SU N.2 Development of the proposed project would increase the number of jobs located within the City which could affect the demand for housing. LS No mitigation necessary LS N.3 Development of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan could contribute to substantial growth in undeveloped areas and require extension of major infrastructure. LS No mitigation necessary LS ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Turnstone Consulting, T160 III.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. INTRODUCTION The proposed project provides for the consideration and adoption of a Specific Plan to act as a guide for the future mixed-use development of a 454-acre area1 known as the Tivoli Specific Plan. The Tivoli Specific Plan would include about 286 acres of residential land use designation, totaling 3,241 residential dwelling units, 14 acres of neighborhood-serving commercial, 6 acres of general commercial, 67 acres of regional-serving commercial, 2 acres of professional office space, a 14-acre elementary school site, about 30 acres of parks and open space, 4 acres of public infrastructure, and about 31 acres of interior collector roadways within the Specific Plan area.2 The project also includes provisions to improve existing traffic and circulation conditions, with construction of new arterial and collector streets for better vehicular circulation and linkages to the existing circulation system and transit services. Consideration and adoption of the Tivoli Specific Plan also includes consideration of the following actions: 1. Adoption of a General Plan Amendment that includes the following: To reclassify a portion of the project site from Village Residential (VR) to Regional Commercial (RC). To allow commercial development for the Village Residential designation in the Tivoli Specific Plan to exceed the recommended 4 percent. To allow for the Tivoli Specific Plan neighborhood center focus that combines a neighborhood park and elementary school. To reclassify Claratina Avenue from a four-lane Class B Expressway to a six-lane Principal Arterial with a Class I bike path from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue. To change Sylvan Avenue from a six-lane Principal Arterial to a four-lane Minor Arterial with bike lanes from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue. To include Class II bike lanes along Oakdale Road from Sylvan Avenue to Claribel Avenue. 1 The Tivoli Specific Plan area contains a total of 480 gross acres. This includes about 26 acres located within the future perimeter arterial streets rights-of-way, measured to the centerline of the streets. For the purposes of discussion in the Draft EIR, the net acreage total of 454 acres is used, except in the analyses found in Chapters IV.I, Hydrology and Water Quality; IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems (Wastewater); and IV.M, Water Supply. 2 Approximate acreage totals for the specific development area designations have been rounded off to the nearest whole number. ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Project Description Turnstone Consulting, T160 III.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 To amend the Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District to allow the Tivoli Specific Plan to exceed the minimum recommended density of 5.1 units per gross acre. 2. Prezoning of the project site to a Specific Plan Overlay. 3. Annexation of the project site into the City of Modesto including approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission. 4. Adoption of a Facilities Master Plan and an Infrastructure Finance Plan for the Tivoli Specific Plan area. 5. Formation of a Community Facilities District to fund the construction of “backbone” public infrastructure, maintenance of applicable public facilities, and applicable public services. 6. Approval of a Development Agreement to guide development within the Tivoli Specific Plan area. 7. Subsequent entitlements, including abandonment of a portion of Mable Avenue, approval of Area Plans, Final Development Plans, tentative maps, Conditional Use Permits, and other City entitlement approvals. The Tivoli Specific Plan would be implemented in phases, with anticipated commencement in 2007 and buildout by approximately 2017. B. PROJECT OBJECTIVES The proposed project intends to provide the comprehensive master planning and orderly development of the Tivoli Specific Plan project site. Development of the proposed project is intended to be consistent with the policies of the City of Modesto. The following specific objectives have been identified for the project: Land Use Objectives To foster distinctive, attractive developments with a strong sense of place. To provide development consistent with the Neotraditional Planning Principles provided in Section III-C of the Modesto Urban Area General Plan. The primary concept is to provide a complete and integrated community with housing, work places, commercial and retail services, schools, parks, and civic facilities essential to the daily life of the residents. To create a range of housing opportunities and choices with multi-family and/or affordable housing in compliance with the regional housing needs consistent with the Housing Element. To enhance the City’s economic base through increased sales tax revenue. To provide a regional commercial development to serve the east side of the City in a timely manner. To locate regional commercial development along or near regional transportation corridors. ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Project Description Turnstone Consulting, T160 III.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 To provide commercial and institutional services and employment on the east side of the City to reduce travel time. Circulation Objectives To provide acceptable levels of traffic service on roadways consistent with the General Plan policies and Level of Service standards. To create neighborhoods that encourage pedestrian and bicycle use and link to the commercial, school, and park sites. Public Facilities and Services Objectives To ensure public facilities and services are adequately planned and provided with development. To ensure that a financing plan is provided with funding mechanisms for the provision of adequate public facilities and services. C. PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project site is a 454-acre area located in an unincorporated area of Stanislaus County, adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the City of Modesto, in the central San Joaquin Valley. Stanislaus County is bounded by San Joaquin County to the north, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa Counties to the east, Merced County to the south, and Santa Clara and Alameda Counties to the west. (See Figure 1: Project Location.) The project site is located within Modesto’s Sphere of Influence. Modesto is located approximately 30 miles southeast of Stockton, 70 miles south of Sacramento, and 80 miles east of Oakland. Nearby Central Valley communities include Salida, Ripon, and Manteca to the northwest, Riverbank to the north, and Ceres, Turlock, and Merced to the south. The project site is located about four miles northeast of Modesto’s downtown core. Highway 99 is located six miles to the west. Kiernan Avenue (State Route 219) is one mile to the north. The site is bounded by the planned Claratina Avenue on the north,3 Oakdale Road on the west, Sylvan Avenue on the south, and Roselle Avenue on the east. 3 Claratina Avenue has not been constructed east of Coffee Road. It is a designated future extension for a Class B Expressway in the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. A street name change from Claratina Avenue to Pelandale Avenue may be considered at a future time. ---PAGE BREAK--- Miles 0 10 5 5 5 205 580 J3 J7 J6 J9 J9 J9 J2 J4 J16 J16 J14 33 132 99 165 106 108 120 4 4 26 88 120 120 84 4 4 199 219 ! 2 4 . / # 4 3 / # # $ % - ! , ! / # $ % - ! , ! / # / # ) 5 1 ! / ! 3 / # ) 5 1 ! / ! 3 4 3 / # 3 5 ! , 3 ) . ! / # ) 5 1 ! / ! 3 4 3 / # 3 5 ! , 3 ) . ! ! $ % - ! , ! / # 4 . ! 3 ! ! 2 ! , # / # PROJECT SITE STOCKTON MODESTO BRENTWOOD PLEASANTON TRACY MILNES RD PLAINVIEW RD WARNERVILLE RD YOSEMITE RD HATCH RD HUGHSON AV WEST MAIN ST KEYES RD BRADBURY MARSHALL RD AUGUST RD WILLIAMS AV KIERNAN AV MAZE BL PARADISE RD SHOEMAKE AV D R S U A L C D R E L A D K A O R N E H C M Y D R D R R E T N E P R A C D R S G N I N N E J RI VE R R D YOSEMITE AV LONE TREE RD DODDS RD S W O R C G N I D N A L D R L A R T N E C AV KA SS ON RD D E L P L E N TO CAN Y ON R D MINE S RD SOURCE: City of Modesto, Turnstone Consulting Feet 0 2000 . SONOR A RD MILTON RD 2) 6 % SYLVAN AV 99 7%3 / % LITT ROAD CLAUS ROAD #(52#( 342%%4 45,,9 2/!$ 02/*%#4 3)4% Legend S T AN D I F O RD AVENUE III.4 ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Project Description Turnstone Consulting, T160 III.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 D. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site totals approximately 454 acres, contains 86 separate parcels, and is within the City of Modesto’s Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District (CPD). The CPD is planned to provide 1,700 acres of new business park and residential uses in the vicinity bounded by Claribel Avenue, Oakdale Road, Sylvan Avenue, and the Santa Fe railroad line. The Tivoli Specific Plan area represents about 27 percent of the proposed CPD’s total area. The Tivoli Specific Plan area is identified in this document as the “project site.” Land use designation for the Roselle/Claribel CPD is planned for “Village Residential” and “Business Park” development. This area is intended to provide development of residential uses in the vicinity of Claribel Road, Oakdale Road, and Sylvan Avenue, and business park uses along the Santa Fe railroad line. The land use designation in the CPD for the project site is Village Residential. The vicinity of the proposed project site contains a mix of mostly agricultural and residential uses with some commercial/office uses. To the north are agricultural parcels with some individual home sites. To the west are single-family residential neighborhoods and agricultural uses, the Northeast Modesto Police command office, County offices, and a commercial development at the northwest corner of the Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue intersection. To the south and a portion of the east is the 1,850-acre Village One Specific Plan area, which mostly is developed with residential uses and limited commercial uses. Enochs High School and a future community park are located just east of the project site. A limited portion of the Village One Specific Plan area is in agricultural production or vacant. Commercial and office buildings and a post office are also located to the south across Sylvan Avenue. Most of the area east of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area lies within the planned Roselle/Claribel CPD. This area is currently in agricultural operation with some individual home sites. Future designated land uses include residential and business park. Present land uses on the project site primarily include agricultural production, single-family residences, and some commercial/office space. Row crops and fallow fields make up the majority of the agricultural use throughout the north and central portions, with some orchards planted in the northwest corner of the site. Existing single-family residential neighborhoods make up the west-central portion along Mable Avenue and Lydia Lane, the south-central portion along Jeffrey Drive, and the south-eastern portion along McReynolds Avenue. There are additional stand-alone homesites with access along Roselle Avenue. An existing commercial/office center is located in the southwest corner of the site at the northeast corner of the Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue intersection. There is an existing office building at the southeast corner of Oakdale Road and Mable Avenue. East of the commercial center along Sylvan is a church and private recreational center. Further east on Sylvan Avenue at McReynolds ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Project Description Turnstone Consulting, T160 III.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Avenue is a commercial/light industrial building owned by Pacific Bell. A 4-acre water storage tank reservoir area owned and operated by the City of Modesto is located in the center of the Specific Plan area and would remain under the proposed project. There is also a series of three microwave towers in the southwestern portion of the Specific Plan area, east of Lydia Lane. E. PROPOSED PROJECT Consideration and adoption of the Tivoli Specific Plan also includes consideration of the following actions: 1. Adoption of a General Plan Amendment that includes the following: To reclassify a portion of the project site from Village Residential (VR) to Regional Commercial (RC). To allow commercial development for the Village Residential designation in the Tivoli Specific Plan to exceed the recommended 4 percent. To allow for the Tivoli Specific Plan neighborhood center focus that combines a neighborhood park and elementary school. To reclassify Claratina Avenue from a four-lane Class B Expressway to a six-lane Principal Arterial with a Class I bike path from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue. To change Sylvan Avenue from a six-lane Principal Arterial to a four-lane Minor Arterial with bike lanes from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue. To include Class II bike lanes along Oakdale Road from Sylvan Avenue to Claribel Avenue. To amend the Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District to allow the Tivoli Specific Plan to exceed the minimum recommended density of 5.1 units per gross acre. 2. Prezoning the project site to a Specific Plan Overlay. 3. Annexation of the project site into the City of Modesto including approval by the Local Agency Formation Commission. 4. Adoption of a Facilities Master Plan and an Infrastructure Finance Plan for the Tivoli Specific Plan area. 5. Formation of a Community Facilities District to fund the construction of “backbone” public infrastructure, maintenance of applicable public facilities, and applicable public services. 6. Approval of a Development Agreement to guide development within the Tivoli Specific Plan area. 7. Subsequent entitlements, including abandonment of a portion of Mable Avenue, approval of Area Plans, Final Development Plans, tentative maps, Conditional Use Permits, and other City entitlement approvals. ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Project Description Turnstone Consulting, T160 III.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN - LAND USE DESIGNATIONS The Specific Plan area includes the following development components: residential, commercial, office, a school site, dual use neighborhood park and storm basin, and construction and extension of necessary public infrastructure streets, sewers, water, storm drainage, electricity, gas, and telecommunications). The development components are described separately below and shown on Figure III.2: Conceptual Land Use Diagram. The acreage numbers have been rounded in the text discussion. The precise acreage of development will be determined when the engineering is prepared. The Tivoli Specific Plan would include prezoning of the site to a Specific Plan Overlay zone with residential, commercial, and office as underlying uses, and annexation of the site into the City of Modesto limits. A Facilities Master Plan and an Infrastructure Finance Plan are also proposed for the site. Residential Very Low Density Residential Existing Very Low Density Residential (EVLDR) land use in the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area is defined as having one to three dwelling units per acre. There are about 23 acres with 48 dwelling units along Mable Avenue, Lydia Lane, and Jeffrey Drive, which would remain as part of the development of the Specific Plan. These areas would be designated as EVLDR land use. An additional 10 acres of Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) land use is proposed in the vicinity of Mable Avenue, for up to 30 new dwelling units. Low Density Residential Low Density Residential (LDR) land use in the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area is defined as having four to eight dwelling units per acre. Nearly 165 acres, containing up to 1,322 dwelling units, of LDR land use is proposed in the Specific Plan area. Most residential development at this density would occur in the southern and south-central portions of the Specific Plan area. Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential (MDR) is proposed as a residential land use containing between 8 and 18 dwelling units per acre. About 46 acres of MDR land use is planned, with a total maximum of about 833 MDR dwelling units. ---PAGE BREAK--- III.8 ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Project Description Turnstone Consulting, T160 III.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Medium High Density Residential Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) is proposed for residential acres containing between 18 and 24 dwelling units per acre. About 42 acres of MHDR land use is proposed in the Specific Plan area, containing up to 1,008 multi-family, apartment-style housing units along the planned Claratina Avenue, along Roselle Avenue, and in the east-central portion of the proposed Specific Plan area. Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Land allocated for local neighborhood-based commercial development is proposed in the Specific Plan area under the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) land use designation. A neighborhood- based commercial development, totaling about 3 acres, is in the southwestern corner of the project site, at the intersection of Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue. This development would be designated NC under the Specific Plan. Two additional NC areas totaling 11 acres are proposed along Roselle Avenue. Allowable floor area ratio in the NC district is proposed to be 0.30 square feet for every square foot of lot area. General Commercial The General Commercial (GC) land use designation is proposed in the Specific Plan area for general commercial development. About 6 acres of land designated “GC” is proposed along Oakdale Road, north of the existing shopping center at Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue. Allowable floor area ratio in the GC district is proposed to be 0.30 square feet for every square foot of lot area. Regional-Serving Commercial The Regional-Serving Commercial (RSC) land use designation in the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area would function as a regional-serving commercial center. About 47 acres of RSC-1 designated development is proposed in the northwest corner at the intersection of Oakdale Road and planned Claratina Avenue, and about 20 of RSC-2 designated development along Oakdale Road south of Mable Avenue. Allowable floor area ratio in the RSC district is proposed to be 0.30 square feet per every square foot of lot area. This would yield an estimated maximum of approximately 600,000 square feet of building area in RSC-1 and approximately 260,000 square feet of building area in RSC-2 for regional commercial type uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Project Description Turnstone Consulting, T160 III.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Professional Office A 2-acre area along Oakdale Road is proposed to have a Professional Office (PO) land use designation. This area would be reserved for additional professional office space development as the Tivoli Specific Plan builds out and matures. School A 14-acre elementary school site is designated in the northeastern portion of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area. Parks and Open Space The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan designates about 30 acres of parks and open space land use. A 19-acre dual-use basin park is proposed in the central portion of the proposed Specific Plan area. Of that 19-acre dual-use basin park, at least 9 acres would be provided to meet the effective neighborhood park area consistent with the City of Modesto Dual Use Standards and the remaining acreage would be a water basin containment area. Over 11 acres of linear parkway (paseo) are also proposed along several interior collector roadways within the Specific Plan area; this paseo area is open space, but would not qualify as park land credit under the City of Modesto General Plan. Circulation Direct access to the Tivoli Specific Plan area would be available in the future from the extension of the Claratina Avenue Expressway, which parallels the northern boundary. The project includes a General Plan Amendment to reclassify the portion of Claratina Avenue between Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue from a four-lane Class B Expressway to a six-lane Principal Arterial. This roadway is anticipated to be constructed with the initial phase of the development. Oakdale Road along the west, Sylvan Avenue along the south, and Roselle Avenue along the east currently provide vehicular access to the site and would continue to do so under Specific Plan conditions. Collector and local residential streets would be constructed within the Specific Plan area to provide ingress and egress to the various development components. This interior collector street network would total about 31 acres. In addition, non-motorized facilities, such as Class I bike paths and Class II bike lanes and pedestrian paths, would be constructed along Claratina, Oakdale, Sylvan, and Roselle Avenues adjacent to the project site, as well as on collector streets through the project site, in accordance with the Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan. Various points of ingress and egress are proposed for the project area. Two points are planned along Oakdale Road. The existing point of ingress and egress onto Mable Avenue from Oakdale ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Project Description Turnstone Consulting, T160 III.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Road would be modified to the Regional Commercial area RSC-1, as shown on Figure 2. A new primary access to this developed area from Oakdale Road would be constructed via a proposed interior collector street. Two points of ingress and egress are proposed along Claratina Avenue and two are planned along Roselle Avenue. The three points of ingress and egress along Sylvan Avenue at McReynolds Avenue, Lydia Lane and Jeffrey Drive would remain, and two additional points of access that connect with Wood Sorrel Drive and Aria Way to the south would be constructed, bringing the total along Sylvan Avenue to five. Individual commercial (RSC, NC, and GC) projects may have their own access points to these perimeter arterial streets. Analysis and approval of these access points will occur as part of the traffic study, site access study, and plan review for each of these projects. Roundabouts are proposed internally within the Specific Plan area as well as along Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue. The existing right-of-way along the south side of Sylvan Avenue is mostly established with the development within Village One. The roundabouts will need to be pushed a little to the north and require extra right-of-way at the intersections. Traffic control devices required along Claratina Avenue will be determined by the traffic study and site access study as reviewed by the City of Modesto Traffic Engineering Division. Utilities and Infrastructure Existing water, sewer, electric, gas, and communications lines traverse the proposed 454-acre Specific Plan area. The proposed Specific Plan development would tie into some of these facilities, and would also require new construction and upgrade. The existing Sonoma Trunk sewer line stubs out south of the project site at Sylvan Avenue and a new sewer line would be extended north through the project site. New water and storm drainage facilities are needed to serve the project. Additional proposed facilities would follow new road alignments and are planned as part of the project. Roads and utility infrastructure would be constructed, dedicated, and easements granted (where necessary) consistent with applicable standards and requirements. Facilities Master Plan, Finance Plan, and Community Facilities District The proposed project also includes adoption of a Facilities Master Plan, Infrastructure Finance Plan, and formation of a Community Facilities District. The Facilities Master Plan will provide a detailed analysis and description of the public facilities required to serve the Specific Plan. The Infrastructure Finance Plan will provide the basis for the actual funding mechanism of the public facilities. The Community Facilities District will be a specific taxing district formed to construct and maintain certain public infrastructure and amenities and certain public services. ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Project Description Turnstone Consulting, T160 III.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 F. PROJECT EXCLUSIONS This project does not propose development of what is sometimes known as a “discount superstore.” A discount superstore is generally defined as a “big box” discount store in excess of 89,000 square feet in which at least five percent of the gross floor area is devoted to goods that are not subject to state sales tax groceries). Examples of discount superstores include a Wal-Mart Supercenter or a Super-Target. The term does not include “discount club” stores, which are membership stores that sell groceries and other goods generally in bulk. Because the project does not propose development of discount superstores, any such use is expressly excluded from this Project Description and is specifically excluded from evaluation by this Environmental Impact Report. Recent case law recognizes that discount superstores are unique from general retail uses studied in this Environmental Impact Report and have the potential to cause environmental effects that are materially different from or more severe than environmental effects resulting from other types of retail uses that are studied in this Environmental Impact Report. These different or more severe significant environmental effects include but are not limited to urban decay, energy consumption, traffic congestion, and demands for public services, including police, fire and health. (See Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184.) Since the Project Description expressly excludes discount superstores, the evaluation contained in this Environmental Impact Report is not intended to identify, consider, or evaluate the potential of such discount superstores to result in any of these unique or more severe environmental effects at any level of detail. This Environmental Impact Report does not analyze such effects even at a “first tier” or “programmatic” level. Since this Environmental Impact Report excludes discount superstores from the Project Description and does not evaluate the potential for significant environmental effects flowing from introducing such discount superstores to the project, certifying this Environmental Impact Report and approving some or all of the project Approvals does not authorize a discount superstore use as part of the project. A discount superstore may not be proposed or developed within the Specific Plan area unless the environmental impacts of such a use are fully analyzed in a separate environmental document in full compliance with CEQA. G. PROJECT APPROVALS As part of implementation of the proposed project, several permits and approvals would be necessary prior to construction. These are listed below, and the relevant agencies involved in the review process are identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Project Description Turnstone Consulting, T160 III.13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 CITY OF MODESTO City Environmental Impact Report/CEQA review. The City of Modesto must certify an EIR prior to its approval of any of the project applications listed below. This EIR is being prepared to fulfill this requirement. Tivoli Specific Plan consideration and adoption. The City of Modesto must consider and adopt the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan. Urban Area General Plan Amendment. Proposed amendments would include the following: to reclassify a portion of the project site from Village Residential (VR) to Regional Commercial (RC); to allow commercial development for the Village Residential designation in Tivoli Specific Plan to exceed the recommended 4 percent; to allow for the Tivoli Specific Plan neighborhood center focus that combines a neighborhood park and elementary school; to reclassify Claratina Avenue from a four- lane Class B Expressway to a six-lane Principal Arterial with a Class I Bike Path from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue; to change Sylvan Avenue from a six-lane Principal Arterial to a four-lane Minor Arterial with bike lanes from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue; to include Class II Bike Lanes along Oakdale Road from Sylvan Avenue to Claribel Avenue; and to amend the Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District to allow the Tivoli Specific Plan to exceed the minimum recommended density of 5.1 units per gross acre. Prezoning as a Specific Play Overlay. The project site must be prezoned as a Specific Plan Overlay. Annexation. The City of Modesto must adopt a resolution initiating annexation to the City. Add the project site to the Modesto Municipal Sanitary District No. 1 service area. Facilities Master Plan and Finance Plan. A Facilities Master Plan and an Infrastructure Finance Plan for the Tivoli Specific Plan area must be adopted. Community Facilities District. A Community Facilities District that includes the Tivoli Specific Plan area must be formed to fund the construction of “backbone” public infrastructure, maintenance of applicable public facilities, and applicable public services. Development Agreement. A development agreement to guide development within the Tivoli Specific Plan area may be approved. Subsequent Entitlements. Subsequent entitlements such as abandonment of a portion of Mable Avenue, approval of Area Plans, Final Development Plans, tentative maps, Conditional Use Permits, and other City entitlement approvals. STANISLAUS LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) Approval by LAFCO. LAFCO shall review reorganization of the Tivoli Specific Plan, including the annexation of the territory to the City of Modesto and simultaneously detach the territory from the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.A.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION A. LAND USE AND PLANNING This section describes the existing land uses in the vicinity of the project site, reviews the land use regulatory setting of the project area, and evaluates the general land use compatibility of the Tivoli Specific Plan with respect to surrounding existing land uses. Further discussion of land use and planning impacts is presented in the near-term wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING EXISTING LAND USES Regional and Local Setting The City of Modesto is located within California’s San Joaquin Valley, approximately 30 miles south of Stockton, 70 miles south of Sacramento, and 80 miles east of Oakland. Nearby Central Valley cities include Salida, Ripon, and Manteca to the northwest, Riverbank to the north, and Ceres, Turlock, and Merced to the south. Fertile soils, availability of water, and a nearly year- round growing season make this region among the most productive agricultural areas in the nation, supporting a diverse assortment of crops sold in markets around the world. Modesto is located in the center of these rich agricultural lands. With a current population of 207,634,1 Modesto is the economic and social center of Stanislaus County. Project Vicinity The 454-acre Tivoli Specific Plan project site is located in an unincorporated area of Stanislaus County, in the central San Joaquin Valley, adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the City of Modesto. The site is within Modesto’s Sphere of Influence2, in an area outside of the City’s boundaries that is identified as one of the areas that will absorb future urban development. Specifically, the project site is within the Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District (CPD), a 1,700-acre planning area designated for new business park and residential uses. 1 State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 City / County for Stanislaus County in October 2002 and an Addendum in July 2003. 2 “Sphere of Influence” is defined by Section 56076 of the Government Code as “a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency.” ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation A. Land Use and Planning Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.A.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Highway 99 is about six miles to the west of the project site. Kiernan Avenue (State Route 219) is one mile to the north. The site is bounded by the planned Claratina Avenue on the north, Oakdale Road on the west, Sylvan Avenue on the south, and Roselle Avenue on the east. The project site is generally surrounded by a mix of agricultural operations, residences, and neighborhood-serving commercial uses. Areas to the north and east of the project site are also in Stanislaus County jurisdiction, and are identified within Modesto’s Roselle-Claribel CPD for future residential and business park uses. Areas to the north currently are in agricultural production, with individual farmhouse compounds associated with agricultural use of the land. East of the site, across Roselle Avenue, are agricultural uses with farmsteads, a private facility with multiple baseball diamonds, and the newly constructed Enochs High School and adjacent Grogan community park site. South of the project site is the Village One Community Planning District, a 1,850-acre Specific Plan area that is mostly developed with residential uses and limited commercial uses. The high school and park site mentioned above are also in the Village One Community Planning District. A small portion of the Village One Specific Plan area is in agricultural production or vacant. Commercial and office buildings and a post office are located immediately south across Sylvan Avenue. West of the project site are single-family residential neighborhoods and agricultural uses, the Northwest Modesto Police command office, County offices, and a commercial development at the northwest corner of Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue intersection. Project Site The Tivoli Specific Plan project site is roughly square in shape and contains 86 separate parcels in the southwest corner of the Roselle-Claribel CPD. Present land uses on the project site primarily include agricultural production, single-family residences, and some commercial/office space. Row crops and fallow fields make up the majority of the agricultural use throughout the north and central portions, with some orchards in the northwest corner of the site. Existing single-family residential neighborhoods make up the west-central portion along Mable Avenue and Lydia Lane, the south-central portion along Jeffrey Drive, and the south-eastern portion along McReynolds Avenue. There are an additional seven stand-alone homesites fronting Roselle Avenue. An existing commercial/office center is located in the southwest corner of the site at the northeast corner of the intersection of Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue. East of the commercial center along Sylvan Avenue is a church and private recreational center. Further east on Sylvan Avenue at McReynolds Avenue is a commercial/light industrial building owned by Pacific Bell (SBC). A water storage tank reservoir area owned and operated by the City of Modesto is located in the center of the Specific Plan area. There is also a series of three microwave towers in the southwestern portion of the Specific Plan area, east of Lydia Lane. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation A. Land Use and Planning Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.A.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Stanislaus County Upon annexation, the County’s General Plan, zoning, and other land use designations would cease to apply. Because the project sponsors contemplate annexation into Modesto, conformity with the Stanislaus County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which regulates land uses in unincorporated Stanislaus County, will not be evaluated. However, the County General Plan and Zoning Ordinance are discussed below as part of the Setting discussion for informational purposes. County General Plan The County’s General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term plan for the development of Stanislaus County, consisting of a statement of goals, policies, and implementation measures. The County General Plan identifies the proposed location, character, and extent of land uses within the County through General Plan land use designations. As discussed above, the County General Plan would not apply to the project after annexation to Modesto. With the exception of two parcels3 in the southwestern portion of the project site and a City of Modesto parcel,4 all properties in the Tivoli Specific Plan project area are currently zoned A-2-10-UT (General Agriculture) under the Stanislaus County zoning ordinance. This establishes agriculture as the primary use for land so designated. The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan is located in an area designated as Urban Transition. The purpose of the Urban Transition designation is to ensure that land remains in agricultural use until urban development consistent with a city’s (or unincorporated community’s) general plan designation is approved. The Urban Transition designation is appropriate for undeveloped land located within a city or town’s sphere of influence.5 The Agriculture designation recognizes the value and importance of agriculture by acting to preclude incompatible urban development within agricultural areas. It is intended for areas of land that are presently or potentially desirable for agricultural use by virtue of their location, topography, parcel size, soil classification, and water availability, as well as land uses adjacent to them. The Agriculture designation also allows dwelling units, limited commercial services, and light industrial uses related to agriculture, provided these do not conflict with the primary agricultural use. This designation is consistent with an A-2-10-UT (General Agriculture) County zoning district. 3 APN Parcels #083-005-016 and #083-005-019 are zoned Planned Development (P-D) under the Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance. 4 A City of Modesto water tank is located on this 5-acre parcel (4 acre minus collector street dedication) located roughly in the center of the project site and is considered City of Modesto land. 5 Stanislaus County General Plan, 1994, p. I-25. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation A. Land Use and Planning Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.A.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 County Zoning The County’s zoning ordinance implements the County’s General Plan by establishing and defining zoning districts and the specific regulations and standards applicable to each zoning district including those governing uses of land, density, dimensions of structures, and sites.6 County zoning district maps establish and indicate the location and boundaries of the zoning districts and are incorporated as part of the County zoning ordinance by reference. The parcels in the project area will retain their existing A-2-10-UT zoning until the County zoning district maps are amended to rezone the parcels, under specific development proposals, or until annexation by the City of Modesto (at which point, County zoning would cease to apply). Section 21.12.20 of the County zoning ordinance defines “agriculture” as “the tilling of the soil, raising of crops, horticulture, viticulture, small livestock farming, dairying, or animal husbandry, including all uses customarily incidental thereto.” In addition to agriculture, the General Agriculture zoning permits other uses that are incidental to agriculture, such as residences and buildings that are incidental to the agricultural use of the property, produce stands, lagoons for the storage of animal wastes, Christmas tree sales lots, fireworks stands, produce stands, and family daycare. Other uses, less related to or compatible with agriculture, are divided into three tiers that may be approved by the County Planning Commission upon the findings specified for each tier. Tier One uses include (but are not limited to) wholesale nurseries; landscape contractors; agricultural service airports; permanent and temporary housing for agricultural workers; and produce markets. Tier Two uses include (but are not limited to) agricultural processing plants and facilities; retail sales and tasting rooms in conjunction with an agricultural processing plant; and commercial or municipal composting. Tier Three uses include (but are not limited to) kennels; recreational guest camps; cemeteries; schools; churches; rifle ranges; public buildings, parks or other public facilities; public utilities and communication towers; sanitary landfills; day care centers; golf courses and driving ranges, athletic fields and facilities; and some types of commercial quarrying and mining. City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan Modesto’s General Plan contains growth strategy policies relevant to the proposed project. These policies help define the quality, quantity, and direction of future urban growth, and are summarized in Appendix B: Applicable Goals and Policies. The General Plan identifies three 6 Stanislaus County, Stanislaus County Code, Title 21-Zoning Ordinance. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation A. Land Use and Planning Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.A.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 distinct concentric areas: the Redevelopment Area, which generally includes the historic downtown core; the Baseline Developed Area, which generally includes areas that are substantially developed with urban uses; and the Planned Urbanizing Area, which forms the outer perimeter of Modesto’s General Plan Urban Area. The General Plan identifies policies specific to each of these areas. The project site is located within the Planned Urbanizing Area. The Planned Urbanizing Area is defined in the General Plan as a 17,600-acre area where future development “will occur on land which is, in the 1995 Baseline Year, predominantly flat, vacant and/or developed with agricultural uses, and minimally if at all served with urban services and infrastructure including roads.”7 The Planned Urbanizing Area is expected to absorb substantial urban development in a comprehensively planned manner. To ensure that growth in the Planned Urbanizing Area occurs in a planned manner, the General Plan designates 25 Comprehensive Planning Districts (CPDs) within the Planned Urbanizing Area, through which the General Plan policies associated with each CPD are implemented. CPDs are implemented through preparation and adoption of a Comprehensive Plan. The Tivoli Specific Plan project site is within the Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District (CPD). Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District The Roselle-Claribel CPD is a 1,700-acre Comprehensive Planning District intended to create a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented community adjacent to the northeast boundary of Modesto. About 1,430 acres are designated for Village Residential and the remaining 260 acres for Business Park. The Tivoli Specific Plan project site is located in the southwest corner of the Roselle-Claribel CPD, in an area designated Village Residential and makes up about 27 percent of the CPD area. The entire project site is currently designated Village Residential under the General Plan Land Use Diagram (Figure III-1, Modesto Urban Area General Plan). Modesto’s General Plan establishes the general definition and policy direction for the Village Residential designation. According to the General Plan, the Village Residential designation provides for the development of urban “villages”, which include mixed-use, compact, pedestrian- and transit-oriented development. Development predominately includes single-family residential, multi-family and senior housing, commercial uses, schools, and parks. The recommended overall residential density in the Village Residential land use designation is 5.1 dwelling units per gross acre, while recommended intensity for commercial uses is 4 percent, with a maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio of 0.35 square feet of building area per square foot of gross area of the site. 7 City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan, March 2003. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation A. Land Use and Planning Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.A.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 PROPOSED TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS If approved, the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan would act as the guiding development document for future construction in the project area. Development standards and design guidelines and standards for individual land use and specific zoning designations are as follows: Very Low Density Residential (VLDR). The VLDR land use designation would introduce large-lot (minimum 10,000 sq. ft. [0.25 acre] with a minimum 100-foot lot width) detached single-family housing into the project area. Permitted density would be between one to three dwelling units per acre. Homes would predominately be no more than one story in height. A maximum of 20 percent of the homes in the VLDR district would be allowed to be constructed as two-story homes; second floors would be limited to 50 percent of the first floor area. Low Density Residential (LDR). The LDR land use designation would generally apply to most single-family homes within the Tivoli Specific Plan area. Varied residential lot sizes and housing types in the LDR district would be encouraged. Lot sizes would range between 3,000 – less than 5,000 sq. ft. for small lot development and 5,000 - 12,000 sq. ft. typically for standard lot development. The small lot development may develop up to three stories and 38 feet in height. Between four to eight dwelling units per acre would be permitted. A minimum of 20 percent of the homes would be one story in height, evenly distributed throughout each neighborhood such that no two one-story units are adjacent or across the street from each other. Medium Density Residential (MDR) / Medium High Density Residential (MHDR). The MDR land use designation would allow a variety of housing types from 2,000 – less than 3,000 sq. ft. small lot single-family homes to attached units such as townhomes (row house) and duplexes / triplexes /fourplexes. The City of Modesto’s affordable housing targets would be provided mainly in the MHDR land use designation. Both two-story (up to 30 feet in height) and three-story (up to 45 feet in height) buildings would be allowed. In the MDR land use designation, between 8 to 18 dwelling units per acre would be allowed. Allowable residential density in the MHDR would be between 18 and 24 dwelling units per acre. Professional Office (PO) / Neighborhood Commercial (NC) / General Commercial (GC). The PO land use designation would provide office locations for a variety of professional types. The NC land use designation would be intended to provide for the everyday shopping needs to service the residential neighborhoods. The GC land use designation would be intended to provide commercial development space that offers a broad range of goods and services to meet the convenience and comparison-shopping needs of Tivoli Specific Plan residents and others within a greater vicinity. Allowable floor area ratio for all three land use designations would be 0.30 sq. ft. per acre. Regional Serving Commercial (RSC). The RSC land use designation would provide a facility where large-scale retailers can locate to provide a diversity of retail, service, entertainment, office, finance, and related business uses to serve the regional needs of residents within the City of Modesto and surrounding communities. Allowable floor area ratio in the RSC land use designation is proposed to be 0.30 square feet per every square foot of lot area. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation A. Land Use and Planning Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.A.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 PROJECT CONFORMITY WITH EXISTING LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES The proposed project would include 67 acres of Regional Serving Commercial (RSC) and 387 acres of Village Residential land use designation. Within the Village Residential component of the project, the following land use designations are proposed: 23 acres of Existing Very Low Density Residential (EVLDR); 10 acres of Very Low Density Residential (VLDR); 165 acres of Low Density Residential (LDR); 46 acres of Medium Density Residential (MDR); 42 acres of Medium High Density Residential (MHDR); 14 acres of Neighborhood Commercial (NC); 6 acres of General Commercial (GC); 2 acres of Professional Office (PO); a 14-acre school site; 30 acres of parks and open space; and 4 acres of public infrastructure. An additional 31 acres would be required for the proposed internal collector roadway network. Implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan project would not conform to certain policies and requirements of the Urban Area General Plan, and specifically the Roselle-Claribel CPD. The project would require an amendment to the Urban Area General Plan to change the land use designation for about 67 acres of the project site from Village Residential to Regional Commercial designated as Regional Serving Commercial (RSC) in the Tivoli Specific Plan. As proposed in the Tivoli Specific Plan, the purpose of RCS is to provide for commercial development that would offer a diversity of retail, service, entertainment, office, finance, and related business uses to serve the needs of residents within a 45-minute drive to the RSC center and region.8 RSC area is intended to be the Tivoli Specific Plan’s most intensive, vehicle- oriented commercial district. The Tivoli Specific Plan project would also require a General Plan amendment to exceed allowable recommended density of 5.1 dwelling units per gross acre. Currently, up to 3,241 residential dwelling units are proposed within the project; this exceeds the recommended allowable number of residential units by 926. An amendment would also be required to allow commercial development in the Village Residential land use designation to exceed the recommended 4 percent of the allowable land area, or about 15.5 acres. About 22 acres of general and neighborhood commercial and office area is proposed with the project. Lastly, amendments to the Urban Area General Plan Circulation and Transportation Diagram would be required for the proposed project. Claratina Avenue would be reclassified from a four- lane Class B Expressway to a six-lane Principal Arterial with a Class I bike path from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue. Sylvan Avenue is proposed to change from a six-lane Principal Arterial to a four-lane Minor Arterial with bike lanes from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue. 8 City of Modesto, Tivoli Specific Plan, Final Administrative Draft, August 22, 2006, p. 98 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation A. Land Use and Planning Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.A.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Additionally, a General Plan amendment would be required for the planned Class II bike lanes along Oakdale Road from Sylvan Avenue to Claribel Avenue. MARKET ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT A market analysis and needs assessment report was prepared by Keyser Marston Associates as part of preparation of the EIR. (see Appendix C: Tivoli Regional Commercial Report, prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, July 2006). The purpose of the report was to evaluate whether demand exists for Regional Serving Commercial uses in northeast Modesto, and to analyze whether development would have potential impacts on other retail facilities in Modesto that could result in physical urban decay. Tivoli’s proposed Regional Serving Commercial, 67-acre, 860,000-gsf component would be the first major power center to locate in northeast Modesto. Though no specific tenant commitment has been identified, the project sponsor has indicated that they are in discussion with a number of big box and large promotional / discount stores, such as major home improvement stores (e.g. Lowe’s or Orchard Supply) and / or major discount stores (e.g. a non-supercenter Wal-Mart or Kmart), and specialty-retail stores (e.g. Marshall’s, Mervyn’s, or Ross). The report concluded that there is market demand for the intended regional retail uses in northeast Modesto, based on population trends, retail spending, and the existing and planned competition in the trade area served by the regional uses proposed at the project site. It also concluded that it is unlikely that the proposed Regional Serving Commercial project would result in urban decay. The types of stores proposed with the project are typical of stores that would be located in a power center within suburban markets such as Modesto. The potential tenant stores would largely compete with other chains rather than independent retailers. The proposed location for the Regional Serving Commercial is appropriate for high-intensity retail development given that many of the big box and larger discount stores currently in Modesto are not represented in Modesto’s northeast location. Population growth in Modesto, specifically the northeast area of Modesto, is strong, and as a result there is demand for retail goods found in types of stores being proposed in the Regional Serving Commercial areas of Tivoli. Additionally, the Modesto retail market is strong, with increasing rents and commercial land prices, and very low vacancy in retail space, plus there is a strong re-tenanting of competitive retail spaces in Modesto and northeast Modesto. Even when some stores do close, the properties are recycled for active uses, without long-term vacancy and resulting urban decay. Lastly, due to locational and competitive factors, operation or completion of the proposed Regional Serving Commercial center is anticipated to have virtually no impact on downtown Modesto or on retail uses along Highway 99. It may have an impact on older or weaker facilities along McHenry Avenue, but the impact will likely be mitigated by the City’s strong retail market conditions, the limited availability of large, well- located retail space, and success in recycling of comparable properties. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation A. Land Use and Planning Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.A.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The project would have a significant environmental effect if it: Physically divide an established community. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. These environmental issues were considered in the Initial Study for the project (Appendix As discussed below in Impact A.1, the Initial Study found that the project would have a potentially significant impact as it could physically divide an established community. The second bulleted item, above, is discussed previously under the heading “Project Conformity with Existing Land Use Plans and Policies.”9 The third bulleted item was found to have no impact. Therefore, further discussion of these topics in this EIR is unnecessary. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION This impacts analysis for Land Use and Planning discusses the general compatibility of the land uses proposed under the project in relation to nearby existing land uses. Impact A.1. The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan project would introduce a new land use designation and zoning districts in proximity to existing residential, commercial, and agricultural uses, creating the potential for land use compatibility conflicts. (Less than Significant) Zoning districts proposed within the Village Residential portion of the project would conform to land uses anticipated in the Urban Area General Plan. The regional-serving commercial land use designation component of the project, however, would place intensive commercial development at the edge of the City’s urban development boundary, in proximity to existing residential, neighborhood-commercial, and agricultural uses. The type of land use was not anticipated for the Roselle-Claribel CPD in the Urban Area General Plan, and could result in land use compatibility conflicts between the proposed project and proximate land uses. 9 Note, however, that inconsistency with existing land use plans and policies does not, in itself, constitute a significant environmental impact under CEQA, unless such plans and policies have been locally adopted as thresholds for significant impacts. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation A. Land Use and Planning Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.A.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impacts regarding the compatibility of adjacent land uses are embodied in the physical impacts of the project, including traffic, air quality, noise, and visual impacts. These are discussed in detail in those environmental topic sections of this EIR. The proposed regional-serving commercial center is not inherently incompatible with nearby residential land uses. With adequate landscape screening, noise buffering, and thoughtful site planning and building design, which would be required in the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan development standards and design guidelines and standards, Chapter 5: Design Guidelines and Standards, the regional-serving commercial development would not conflict with the use and enjoyment of nearby properties. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. Impact A.2. The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan project would introduce new residential, commercial, office, and school uses in proximity to ongoing agricultural operations, including the keeping of farm animals, creating the potential for land use compatibility conflicts. (Less than Significant) As discussed in the Agricultural Resources section of this EIR, the Tivoli Specific Plan project would place residential, commercial, office, and school uses in close proximity to ongoing agricultural operations. Aspects of agricultural operations (such as dust, noise, odors, keeping and tending to farm animals, chemicals, aircraft and other machinery, hours of operation) may be perceived as a nuisance to residents, employees, students, and visitors at the project site. The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan would not create islands of new urban development or extend “fingers” of new development into farmland. Rather, it would move an existing urban edge incrementally northward and eastward, creating a compact new urban boundary. Although the potential for new compatibility conflicts between urban and agricultural uses could arise along the relocated urban edge, the proposed project would not lengthen the interface between urban and agricultural uses. Rather, it would replace an existing urban edge at Sylvan Avenue and Oakdale Avenue with a new urban/agricultural interface along the proposed Claratina Avenue and the existing Roselle Road. Residential properties south and west of the project site would cease to occupy the edge of urban development and would themselves be buffered from continued agricultural operations by the proposed development on the project site. Use of pesticides on nearby agricultural land would continue to be subject to the permitting and reporting requirements of California’s pesticide regulatory program, which is administered at the local level by the County Agricultural Commissioner.10 Additionally, existing agricultural 10 California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide Use Reporting, May 2000, available online at www.cdpr.ca.gov, accessed March 7, 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation A. Land Use and Planning Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.A.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 operations that would remain on the project site, such as the keeping and tending of livestock animals on residential properties, would not increase the potential for compatibility conflicts between urban and agricultural uses beyond that which already exists. Under the County and City’s Right to Farm policies, discussed in Section IV.B, Agricultural Resources, of this EIR, impacts from customary agricultural operations on adjacent land are considered normal and acceptable conditions of rural living. By extension of this policy, potential land use compatibility conflicts that arise from the development of the Tivoli Specific Plan project near ongoing agricultural operations would be considered less-than-significant impacts under CEQA. Project impacts on adjacent agricultural land are discussed in Section IV.B, Agricultural Resources. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.B.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the existing agricultural resources of the proposed project site to establish a baseline against which impacts of the project may be compared. It also evaluates the impacts of the proposed project on agricultural resources, and describes mitigation measures that would lessen the project’s potentially significant impacts. Further discussion of agricultural resources impacts is presented in the near-term and cumulative wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING The City of Modesto is in Stanislaus County, centrally located within California’s San Joaquin Valley. Agriculture is a leading industry in Stanislaus County due to flat land with good to excellent soil quality, a favorable climate, and the availability of water. In addition, the region possesses low-cost power and a good transportation system. In 2002, Stanislaus County generated 1.23 billion dollars from its agricultural products, ranking sixth among the nation’s 3,075 counties and sixth among California’s 58 counties.1 Almonds are currently the leading crop commodity in Stanislaus County.2 The City of Modesto is located in the center of these rich agricultural lands. Since the City’s incorporation in 1884 and establishment of the Modesto Irrigation District (MID), agriculture has been the Modesto area’s largest industry. The MID was among the first irrigation districts organized under the 1887 California Irrigation District Law. The main employers in the City of Modesto and Stanislaus County continue to be agricultural, with Del Monte, E & J Gallo, and Foster Farms among the best known names. Principal agricultural products in the Modesto area include dairy products, almonds, poultry and grapes. The project vicinity lies at a northeastern edge of Modesto’s existing developed area. The areas directly south of the project site across Sylvan Avenue, and west of the project site across Oakdale Road are mostly developed with single-family residential neighborhoods. Most of the areas to the north of the project site across planned Claratina Avenue, and east of the project site across Roselle Avenue, are currently in agricultural use with some individual home sites (these areas are designated for residential and business park uses under the planned Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District). 1 United States Department of Agriculture, California Agricultural Statistics Service, 2002 Census of Agriculture - County Profile, p. 2. Available online at http://www.nass.usda.gov. 2 California Department of Food and Agriculture, Summary of County Agricultural Commissioners’ Reports, Gross Values by Commodity Groups, Leading Commodities for Gross Value of Agricultural Production by County, 2004, October 2005, p. 19. Available online at ftp://www.nass.usda.gov. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation B. Agricultural Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.B.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Lands in the vicinity of the Tivoli Specific Plan project area have been in agricultural production since the early 1900s. Land within the project vicinity is characterized by rich soils and flat topography. Most of the soils in the project area include Madera Sandy Loam, San Joaquin Sandy Loam, and Hanford Sandy Loam.3 PRIME FARMLAND The California Department of Conservation defines Prime Farmland as follows: Prime Farmland has the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce high yields. Land must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.4 Much of the undeveloped land that surrounds the developed areas of Modesto, including portions of the project site, is classified and mapped as Prime Farmland by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Department of Conservation.5 This means that expansion of the City’s boundaries frequently results in conversion of Prime Farmland. The California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection monitors the conversion of California’s agricultural lands in two-year increments. During the latest period for which such data are available, 2000-2002, among all of the regions of California, the San Joaquin Valley region led the state in conversion of irrigated farmland to urban uses.6 Stanislaus County is within commute distance of major San Francisco Bay Area urban centers, by present commuting standards. Stanislaus County is experiencing a period of population growth, as newcomers seek affordable housing and a more rural atmosphere. Over most of the last decade Stanislaus County saw an increasing rate of conversion of prime farmland to urban development (from 588 acres in 1992-1994, 695 acres in 1994-1996, 1,648 acres in 1996-1998, 3 United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Eastern Stanislaus Area, September 1964, Plate 5 and p. 84. This is the most current USDA soil survey available for eastern Stanislaus County. 4 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, California Farmland Conversion Report 2000-2002, December 2004, p. 5. Available online at http://www.consrv.ca.gov. 5 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program website, accessed December 21, 2005, 1984-2002 TIME SERIES maps, Modesto Area, Stanislaus County, http://www.consrv.ca.gov. 6 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, California Farmland Conversion Report 2000-2002, December 2004, p. 19. Available online at http://www.consrv.ca.gov. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation B. Agricultural Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.B.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 703 acres in 1998-2000, and 2,044 acres in 2000-2002).7 Although data for 2002-2004 are not yet available through the California Department of Conservation, it is anticipated that this trend has continued to the present. The City of Modesto Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan projected past, present and probable future development from 1995-2025. In that time period, it is anticipated that approximately 22,600 acres of Prime Farmland in the Planned Urbanizing Area would be converted to urban uses, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.8 According to maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,9 the project site includes lands classified as Prime Farmland (roughly 200 acres, generally in the central to southern and western portions of the site, and excluding existing developed areas), and farmland of Local Importance (in the central to northern and eastern portion of the site). The project site also contains Urban and Built-up Land (consisting of the existing commercial development at the southwest corner of the project site, the existing Jeffrey Drive and Lydia Lane residential developments off of Sylvan Avenue, and existing residences along the south side of Mable Avenue). WILLIAMSON ACT The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) of 1965 (Government Code, Section 51220) encourages the conservation of agricultural lands by providing a property tax incentive to landowners to restrict land uses to agriculture and compatible uses. It is a voluntary program administered through local governments, which are responsible for contracting with landowners. Properties subject to Williamson Act contracts must remain in agricultural use for the duration of the contract, a minimum of 10 years. The contracts are self-renewing unless the property owner has filed a Notice of Non-renewal, which initiates a nine-year period after which the contract is terminated. The County may only approve a request for immediate cancellation of a contract by making specific findings under state law, of either consistency with the purposes of the 7 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program website, accessed December 21, 2005, “Land Use Conversion Tables, 1992-1994, 1994-1996, 1996-1998, 1998-2000, 2000-2002,” http://www.consrv.ca.gov. Other losses of Prime Farmland were due to construction of ranchettes (low-density rural residences), ecological restoration projects, and long-term land idling. 8 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, March 2003, p. V-4-10. 9 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program website, accessed December 21, 2005, 1984-2002 TIME SERIES maps, Modesto Area, Stanislaus County, http://www.consrv.ca.gov. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation B. Agricultural Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.B.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Williamson Act, or as a cancellation in the public interest (California Government Code, Section 51282(a)). Over a dozen parcels in the project area, totaling about 285 acres, are under Williamson Act protection. Williamson Act contracts for 12 of those parcels were protested by the City of Modesto throughout the late 1970s and into the early 1990s; LAFCO upheld the City’s protest. LAFCO is required to determine whether the City may succeed to the County’s rights, duties and powers under the contracts upon annexation, or whether the City may exercise its option not to succeed to the contracts if LAFCO determines the following: that the land being annexed was within one mile of the city's boundary when the contract was executed; that the City had filed a resolution protesting the execution of the contract with LAFCO; that LAFCO had held a hearing to consider the city's protest to the contract; that LAFCO had found that the contract would be inconsistent with the publicly desirable future use and control of the land; and that LAFCO had approved the city's protest. One remaining ten-acre parcel was not protested and would remain under Williamson Act conservation after annexation, provided that LAFCO approves the annexation of this contracted land, finding that requirements of Government Code 56856.5 are met. Implementation of the proposed project would not require cancellation of this Williamson Act contract. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Through its responsibilities to govern the approval of annexations and Spheres of Influence, LAFCO considers soil quality and the availability of irrigation water when assessing the impacts of annexation proposals on agricultural land. LAFCO policies direct that development or use of land for other than open space shall be guided away from existing prime agricultural land, unless that action would not promote the planned, orderly, efficient development of an area.10 Stanislaus County General Plan The County General Plan provides policy direction for unincorporated lands outside the jurisdiction of the City of Modesto, as described below. Agricultural Element, Goal 1: The Agricultural Element policies state that proposals will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Factors to be considered include soil types, potential for agricultural production, availability of irrigation water, ownership and parcelization patterns, uniqueness and flexibility of use, the existence of Williamson Act contracts, existing uses, and the contributions to the agricultural sector of the local economy. Setbacks from 10 California Government Code, Section 56377. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.B.4a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 agricultural areas shall be established to minimize adverse impacts of adjacent uses on agriculture.11 Agricultural Element, Goal 2: The County recognizes the right of cities and unincorporated communities to grow and prosper and shall not oppose reasonable requests to expand Spheres of Influence of cities or community service districts and sanitary districts serving unincorporated communities to accommodate growth. However, the County shall discourage the expansion of Spheres of Influence of cities or communities into its most productive 11 Stanislaus County, Agricultural Element of the Stanislaus County General Plan, pp. 7-25, April 23, 1992. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.B.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 agricultural areas. To the greatest extent feasible, the County shall require mitigation of the impacts of farmland conversion. New areas for urban development (as opposed to expansion of existing areas) shall be limited to less productive agricultural areas. Agriculture, as the primary industry of the County, shall be promoted and protected.12 Land Use Element, Goal 1, Policy 2: The Land Use Element states that designated agricultural lands shall be restricted to uses that are compatible with agricultural practices, including natural resources management, open space, outdoor recreation and enjoyment of scenic beauty.13 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan The March 2003 Urban Area General Plan contains a number of policies aimed at minimizing impacts to agricultural lands in its Baseline Developed Area and Planned Urbanizing Area, as described below.14 General Plan Policy VII-D.2[a]: If a subsequent project is within the Baseline Developed Area or Redevelopment Area as identified on the General Plan Growth Strategy Diagram, the project shall be considered to have minimal effect on the conversion of agricultural lands, and no mitigation for that impact is required. General Plan Policy VII-D.3[a]: The City will not annex agricultural land unless urban development consistent with the General Plan has been approved by the City. General Plan Policy VII-D.3[b]: The City shall support the continuation of agricultural uses on lands designated for urban uses until urban development is imminent. General Plan Policy VII-D.3[c]: The City shall encourage the County to retain agricultural uses on lands surrounding the Urban Area General Plan area and on lands within the Urban Area General Plan area pending their annexation to the City or development by mutual agreement with the County. General Plan Policy VII-D.3[d]: Where necessary to promote planned City growth, the City shall encourage development of those agricultural lands that are already compromised by adjacent urban development or contain property required for the extension of infrastructure or other public facilities, before considering urban development on agricultural lands that are not subject to such urban pressures. General Plan Policy VII-D.3[e]: The General Plan should attempt to minimize the loss of agricultural land by having future development be relatively compact and of reasonably high density. 12 Ibid, pp. 27- 47. 13 Stanislaus County, 1994 Stanislaus County General Plan, Chapter 1 - Land Use Element, p. 1-2. 14 City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan, March 2003 (“Urban Area General Plan”), pp. VII-6 - VII-7. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.B.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION This analysis assumes the proposed project would be developed to its full planned capacity, permanently converting the entire project site to non-agricultural use. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The City of Modesto has adopted the Stanislaus County’s Significance Standards for Agricultural Conversion as follows: Project impacts will be significant if they convert any areas of prime agricultural land to urban uses, impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land, or result in substantial pesticide overspray, dust, and noise at urban uses.15 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact B.1. Implementation of the proposed project would directly result in the permanent loss of Prime Farmland. (Significant and Unavoidable) Development of the project to its contemplated capacity would result in the conversion of approximately 200 acres of Prime Farmland to urban development, resulting in the permanent loss of the land as Prime Farmland. Significant, unavoidable impacts resulting from the loss of Prime Farmland within the Planned Urbanizing Area are anticipated in the amended Urban Area General Plan,16 and in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan.17 Annexation and development of the project site would be generally consistent with Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), Stanislaus County and City of Modesto policies that provide for orderly urban growth and compact development patterns to minimize impacts to agricultural lands. Development of the site would extend the urbanized area incrementally northward and would maintain compact urban boundaries. Although development of the site would take place in an anticipated and orderly fashion, consistency with these policies would not reduce the direct impact of the loss of Prime Farmland to less-than-significant levels. Therefore, the direct impact of the loss of Prime Farmland would be a significant, irreversible and unavoidable impact of the project. 15 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, March 2003, p. IV-4-9. 16 City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan, March 2003, p. VII-5. 17 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, March 2003, p. V-4-10. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation B. Agricultural Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.B.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure B.1. Prior to any actual development in the Tivoli Specific Plan area, the City Council will consider creation of a farmland mitigation program to determine whether such a program could feasibly provide partial mitigation of the loss of Prime Farmland. It is possible that the City Council could find that the project’s contribution to the direct loss of Prime Farmland in Stanislaus County could be partially mitigated through the creation and implementation of a farmland mitigation program. Compliance with any adopted farmland mitigation program would be a condition precedent to the issuance of building permits for the project but would not fully mitigate the direct loss of Prime Farmland resulting from the project to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the direct loss of Prime Farmland would remain a significant, irreversible and unavoidable impact of the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation B. Agricultural Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.B.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Reducing the amount of Prime Farmland converted to urban uses is discussed in Chapter VI, Alternatives, of this report, rather than here as mitigation. Impact B.2. Development of the proposed project may burden continued agricultural operations surrounding the project site, and within the project site, prior to development under the proposed Specific Plan. (Less than Significant) The proposed project would place residential and commercial uses in close proximity to existing ongoing agricultural operations surrounding the project site, potentially burdening continued agricultural operations. Aspects of agricultural operations (like dust, noise, livestock, odors, chemicals, aircraft and other machinery, and hours of operation) may be perceived as a nuisance to new residents and employees within the project site, giving rise to complaints, and increased public support for conversion of agricultural lands. Placement of urban land uses at the edge of agricultural land uses may also increase the potential for trespass on agricultural land, and crop pilfering, crop damage and potential personal injury liability associated with trespass. New urban uses adjacent to continued agricultural uses are a common and accepted condition at Modesto’s urbanizing edge. Until development of parcels under the Tivoli Specific Plan, existing agricultural activities within the project site and surrounding the project site would be allowed to continue as Nonconforming Uses. City of Modesto General Plan Policy VII-D.3[b] states that “the City shall support the continuation of agricultural uses on land designated for urban uses until urban development is imminent.” Likewise, General Plan Policy VII-D.3[c] states that “the City shall encourage the County to retain agricultural uses … on lands within the Urban Area General Plan area pending their annexation to the City or development by mutual agreement with the County.” The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan would not create islands of new urban development or extend “fingers” of new development into farmland. Rather, it would move an existing urban edge incrementally northward and eastward, creating a compact new urban boundary. This growth pattern would not hinder the continuance of agricultural operations to the north and east of the project site or increase the potential for conflicts between urban and agricultural uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation B. Agricultural Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.B.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Use of pesticides on nearby agricultural land would continue to be subject to the permitting and reporting requirements of California’s pesticide regulatory program, administered at the local level by the County Agricultural Commissioner.18 Urban runoff from the project would be contained on-site as discussed in Section IV.I, Hydrology and Water Quality, of this EIR. The project would not hinder the continued use of the agricultural lands to the north and east of the project site; therefore, the project’s impacts on surrounding ongoing agricultural operations would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. Impact B.3. Implementation of the proposed project would incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of prime agricultural land in the Modesto area and in eastern Stanislaus County. (Significant and Unavoidable) The roughly 200 acres of prime agricultural land to be converted under the proposed project represents a relatively small portion of the cumulative acreage already lost to urban development in eastern Stanislaus County from 1990-2002 (at least 5,678 acres), and the cumulative loss of Prime Farmland from 1995-2025, projected for the Modesto area in the Urban Area General Plan (22,600 acres).19 However, the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative loss of Prime Farmland in eastern Stanislaus County and in the Modesto area is cumulatively considerable and is therefore a significant impact under CEQA. The cumulative loss of Prime Farmland is an impact of regional and statewide scope. Mitigation Measure B.3. Same as Mitigation Measure B.1. It is possible that the City Council could find that the project’s contribution to the cumulative loss of Prime Farmland in Stanislaus County could be partially mitigated through the creation and implementation of a farmland mitigation program. Compliance with any adopted farmland mitigation program would be a condition precedent to the issuance of building permits for the project but would not fully mitigate the cumulative impacts of the loss of Prime Farmland to less than significant levels. Therefore, the cumulative loss of Prime Farmland would remain a significant, irreversible and unavoidable impact of the project. 18 California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pesticide Use Reporting, May 2000, available online at www.cdpr.ca.gov. 19 City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan, March 2003, p. V-4-10. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.C.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 C. VISUAL RESOURCES This section describes the existing visual resources in the vicinity of the project site, and evaluates the general visual compatibility of the Tivoli Specific Plan with respect to surrounding visual context. Further discussion of visual impacts is presented in the near-term wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING REGIONAL The City of Modesto is located within California’s Central Valley. This vast, nearly flat area is bounded by the Sierra Nevada mountain range to the east and by the coastal range to the west. The flatness and openness of the terrain afford expansive vistas across open land. Agriculture defines the visual character of the undeveloped areas in this region. CITY OF MODESTO The historic downtown core of Modesto is a one mile square. Its streets are laid out in a diagonal grid aligned with the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Its street grid, historic structures, and civic and cultural institutions give the downtown area a distinctive visual character. Over time, newer development has advanced incrementally from the central core in all directions. The site planning of newer residential areas at the perimeter of the City has a different visual character than older development patterns in and near downtown Modesto. PROJECT VICINITY AND PROJECT SITE The project site lies about four miles northeast of Modesto’s downtown core, at the edge of urban development where agriculture and developed urban uses meet. Immediately to the south and a portion of the east is the Village One Specific Plan area, which is mostly developed with residential uses and limited commercial uses. A seven-foot-high masonry wall lines the west side of Oakdale Road and the south side of Sylvan Avenue, visually separating the Village One development from the project site. Peaked rooftops of one- to two-story houses rise from behind the wall. Although this development is relatively recent (about 10 years old to the south and 30 years old to the west), its cover of vegetation is already well established, with numerous trees rising from behind the wall. In contrast to the Village One residential area and the neighborhood on the west side of Oakdale Road, the visual character of the project site, and areas to the north and east of the project site is defined by its flatness, openness and by its agricultural use. A strong rectilinear “patchwork” pattern is formed by alternating roads, fields, orchards, and row crops. This pattern, familiar ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation C. Visual Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.C.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 throughout the Central Valley, affords expansive views across open land. The combined flatness and openness of the land and the rectilinear orientation of its features result in a clear sense of linear perspective with lines converging at a point on the horizon. Randomly scattered farmhouse compounds and ranchettes, surrounded by clusters of mature trees, provide a counterpoint to this regular horizontal pattern. Orchards also provide visual variety, providing a sense of spatial enclosure when viewed from nearby and a linear element when viewed from a distance. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The project would have a significant environmental effect if it would: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Create a new source of substantial light and glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. These environmental issues were considered in the Initial Study Checklist for the project (Appendix A, p. 11). The Initial Study Checklist found, with respect to the first two bulleted items above, that the project would have no impacts. Therefore, further discussion of those topics in this EIR is unnecessary. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact C.1. Development of the project would change the existing agricultural visual character of the project site. (Less than Significant) Implementation of the project would transform the existing open agricultural visual character of the project site. None of the project site’s pre-existing expansive visual character would remain after the project is fully implemented. Existing views across open agricultural land would be replaced by residential and commercial development. However, changes in visual character would not constitute a significant adverse visual impact under CEQA unless they would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The Tivoli Specific Plan includes detailed Design Guidelines and Standards to guide the design and review of development projects. Once approved by the City of Modesto, the Design Guidelines and Standards would specify approved standards and recommendations to promote high quality design, a sense of human scale, visual variety and interest, and a cohesive visual ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation C. Visual Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.C.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 identity for the Tivoli Specific Plan area. Implementation of the Design Guidelines and Standards would therefore ensure that potential impacts related to visual quality would be less than significant. Residential Development The Design Guidelines and Standards establish requirements for residential construction to reduce the scale of buildings, create visual variety and interest, and reduce the visual impact of garages and parking. Massing and Articulation For single-family houses, the Design Guidelines and Standards call for inclusion of upper-story setbacks for two-story and three-story houses to avoid box-like volumes and specify a range and distribution of multi-story size limits (expressed as a percentage of ground floor area) to promote variety between nearby buildings. In multiple-family developments in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) areas, the Design Guidelines and Standards call for a combination of both two-story and three-story residential structures, a maximum building length of 200 feet and the articulation of the façade plan into smaller segments to avoid long unbroken wall and roof surfaces. The Guidelines call for inclusion of elements to add variety and interest to the composition of building volumes. The Guidelines call for a variety of pitched roof forms (such as gables, hips, and dormers) as appropriate for the architectural style, and roof materials to create varied and visually interesting roofscapes. Entries and porches are strongly encouraged to be located on the front street façade and be a well-defined element of each home. The Design Guidelines and Standards call for inclusion of distinctive materials and details at all elevations, including porches, trellises, and columns. Windows and doors should be recessed to provide depth and a play of light and shadow on the façade. Window features such as divided light, sills, trim, shutters, and awnings should be incorporated as appropriate for the architectural style. Architectural Style The Design Guidelines draw upon traditional residential styles identified from Modesto’s older neighborhoods including California Ranch, Craftsman, Western Regional Farmhouse, European Cottage, Spanish Colonial, Monterey, and Central Valley Inspired. The Design Guidelines and Standards identify the defining characteristic elements of each style. The Design Guidelines and Standards require that each single-family house floor plan offer a choice of elevations in at least three different architectural styles and featuring at least four distinctive elements of those styles. The Design Guidelines and Standards also call for a mixed placement of elevation styles, floor plans, or exterior color/material palette, so that these are not placed beside each other. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation C. Visual Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.C.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Parking and Garages The Design Guidelines and Standards encourage a variety of driveway and parking configurations, and garage placements. The Guidelines and Standards specify regulations to limit the impact of garage doors on the streetscape, by requiring that garage doors be set back from the front face of the house or porch columns, limiting the width of garages to a maximum of 50 percent of the façade width, and discouraging three-bay-wide garages in favor of tandem parking to provide a third car space. Commercial and Office Development The Design Guidelines and Standards establish criteria for commercial and office development to encourage a pedestrian scale and orientation, ensure that buildings relate appropriately to surrounding development, and create an attractive and cohesive visual identity for the commercial and office areas. Building Orientation and Siting The Guidelines and Standards require that retail centers provide buildings that frame the corners of adjacent streets to minimize the visual presence of parking lots, frame and enclose a pedestrian “main street, and are clustered to define street edges and entry points and to create usable outdoor space between buildings.” The even dispersal of buildings within the site is encouraged under the Design Guidelines and Standards. The Guidelines and Standards require the provision of outdoor pedestrian amenities and features (like patio/seating areas, pedestrian plazas, transportation center/public transit facilities and play areas). They provide considerations for the siting and furnishing of these spaces to create a sense of place and to create inviting and comfortable outdoor spaces for pedestrians. Service areas and equipment should be located away from public areas and should be screened from view. Building Massing and Articulation The Design Guidelines and Standards call for a clearly defined base, middle, and top. They require that façades be articulated with projecting and recessed elements to avoid large expanses of blank wall. Each building should have a clearly defined entrance announced by architectural features (like canopies, porticos, arches, display windows, and raised parapets). The scale of façades should be broken down with such features as columns, trellises, different colors and materials, display windows, entrances, arcades, arbors, and awnings along most of the façade’s length. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation C. Visual Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.C.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Materials and Colors The Design Guidelines and Standards call for use of a variety of high-quality exterior building materials that are durable and easily maintained (like natural or stone or brick, stucco, integrally-colored, textured, or glazed concrete masonry units). Color schemes should be muted compatible natural tones and should accentuate the architectural features of the building. Parking Lot Design The Design Guidelines and Standards discourage the placement of large parking areas between the street and building entrances to reduce the overall visual impact of parking areas and enhance the relationship between buildings and the street. Large parking areas should be behind storefront building pads and landscaped buffers so that they are screened from public rights-of-way. Large parking lots should be broken up and separated from each other by landscaping, driveways, walkways, or buildings. Landscaping should soften and screen the visual effect of parking lots. Landscaping Landscaping within the Specific Plan area must comply with the landscaping requirements of the Tivoli Specific Plan and City of Modesto Municipal Code. The Design Guidelines and Standards of the Specific Plan require that landscaping be designed as integral part of every retail, commercial and office project. The landscaping requirements of the Specific Plan are intended to create a cohesive visual identity for the Specific Plan area; define entries and circulation (both vehicular and pedestrian); buffer less intensive adjacent uses; contribute to a sense of human scale for buildings and expanses of paving; screen and soften hard urban surfaces; add visual interest with color, pattern, texture and form; and improve pedestrian comfort. Gateways, Walls, and Fencing The Design Guidelines and Standards call for entrance features to provide visual interest and to the streetscape, and serve as a defining element that offers a clear sense of arrival. The size and visual importance of these features would be hierarchical. Major gateways would announce entrances to the Tivoli project. Minor gateways would mark the entrances to residential districts and neighborhood entries would mark the entrances to neighborhoods. These entrance features would consist of setback reservations accented by a combination of plant materials, walls, monuments, and signage and graphics, as appropriate to the type of gateway. The Guidelines and Standards call for walls and fences that provide screening and barriers between properties and uses, define the edges of arterial and collector streets, and provide privacy and security for private property. The Guidelines and Standards specify the design and use of walls and fences to ensure that walls and fences do not obscure views of public space, present a ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation C. Visual Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.C.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 unified design identity for the project, and provide texture and visual interest. Solid eight-foot- high decorative masonry block and stone veneer walls would line surrounding arterial streets to provide a visual and noise buffer for residential uses. Decorative open fences or walls along arterial streets may be allowed for multiple-family projects where the recreation area is adequately buffered. Both solid and view (open, non-view obscuring) walls typically six feet high and lower decorative fences down to 42 inches would line collector streets within the Specific Plan area. The Guidelines and Standards call for a generally consistent design theme and materials for such walls and fences although minor variation is acceptable. The Guidelines and Standards call for pilasters to be placed at vehicular and pedestrian entries and at corners. In addition, the Guidelines and Standards specify that pilasters be placed no less than 50 feet apart along straight runs of wall to articulate the horizontal expanse of walls. Wood fencing is specified to provide security and screening for residential property. Where residential lots back onto or side onto a street, the Guidelines and Standards call for decorative masonry wall that includes accent masonry pilasters at intervals along the fence expanse and at the fence opening. Signage The Design Guidelines and Standards include guidelines for signage to ensure that the orientation and identification needs of the project are met with signage that is appropriate for its setting and function, and presents a cohesive visual identity for the Tivoli development. As part of the implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan, a master signage program will be developed for proposed developments. This program will illustrate and specify the function, general location, quantity, and characteristics of signs (like dimensions, materials, method of illumination, layout, and colors). The Guidelines and Standards call for commercial and retail signage that is architecturally integrated with the design of buildings and its surroundings, combines the identities of multiple tenants into one integrated whole, and is provided for in the design of buildings within logical sign locations. The Guidelines and Standards require that each development project present a Sign Program depicting sign designs, locations, and treatment. Community signage, identifying development projects within the Specific Plan area, should be designed to be unobtrusive and appropriate to their surroundings and integrated into other elements of the streetscape and landscape. Conclusion Although the Tivoli Specific Plan project would transform the existing agricultural visual character of the site, the project would not have an adverse impact on visual resources. As described above, the implementation of the Design Guidelines and Standards, which would ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation C. Visual Resources Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.C.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 enhance the visual quality of the site and its urban surroundings, would ensure that potential adverse impacts related to visual quality would be less than significant under CEQA. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. Impact C.2. Proposed commercial development under the Tivoli Specific Plan would require higher levels of outdoor lighting than surrounding residential development, creating the potential for glare on nearby residential properties. (Less than Significant) The proposed commercial development would create new sources of nighttime light. Building grounds, interior roadways, and surface parking lots of commercial areas would be illuminated, in conformity with minimum City requirements for lighting of parking areas, in the interest of public safety. The proposed Design Guidelines and Standards include standards that require the maintenance of balanced light levels to minimize glare, per recommendations of the Illumination Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) Lighting Handbook. The Design Guidelines also require that light trespass beyond property lines be controlled by shielding or aiming fixtures away from residential properties. Some indirect light (light reflected off of surfaces, and off of particles and moisture in the air) would still be visible to nearby residents as a “glow” when viewing the commercial areas at night. Such light, however, would become increasingly screened over the years, as the cover of vegetation, which would be required as part of project approval, matures. Residents of existing and new residential areas of the Specific Plan area would perceive such indirect project light in the context of existing nighttime street lighting and exterior residential lighting. Exterior nighttime lighting within commercial areas would therefore not create a significant source of light and glare on nearby properties. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This section describes existing traffic conditions on local roads and highways, more generally discusses bicycle and pedestrian conditions, and quantifies the traffic impacts of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan. This section summarizes the results of a detailed transportation impact analysis, Traffic Impact Assessment for the Tivoli Specific Plan EIR, prepared by Dowling Associates, Inc., in February 2006. A copy of the text of this report is provided in Appendix D.1; detailed traffic calculations provided in the appendices to this report are available for review at City of Modesto offices in the Community and Economic Development Department. Further discussion of transportation and circulation impacts is presented in the near-term wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING ROADWAY NETWORK Regional access to the project site is provided by State Route 99 (SR 99). Local access is provided via Kiernan Avenue - State Route 219 (SR 219) - and Claribel Road, Pelandale/Claratina Avenue, Standiford/Sylvan Avenue, East Briggsmore Avenue, Oakdale Road, and Roselle Avenue (see Figure III.1, p. III.4, for a map showing these and other streets discussed in this section). Some of the roadways in the vicinity of the project site have not been extended to their planned length or built to their ultimate planned widths. Improvements are being constructed incrementally as development occurs and traffic volumes increase. State Route 99 (SR 99) is a six-lane, north-south freeway approximately six miles west of the project site. This freeway extends most of the length of California. The two interchanges on SR 99 at Standiford Avenue and Pelandale Avenue provide the main freeway access to the project site. The speed limit on SR 99 is generally 65 miles per hour (mph). State Route 219 is Kiernan Avenue. It extends from west of SR 99 to McHenry Avenue, where it becomes Claribel Road. Kiernan Avenue is a two-lane rural roadway. Caltrans proposes to widen Kiernan Avenue in the vicinity of Dale Road, near SR 99, and upgrade it to a four-lane expressway. Claribel Road is a two-lane rural road extending from McHenry Avenue to its eastern terminus near the Modesto Reservoir, east of the Tivoli Specific Plan site. Pelandale Avenue is an east-west arterial/expressway that extends from west of SR 99 to east of McHenry Avenue, where it becomes Claratina Avenue. It varies from six to two lanes and is being widened as development occurs. The speed limit on Pelandale Avenue is 50 mph east of ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Dale Road and 45 mph west of Dale Road. Claratina Avenue is an east-west roadway that continues east from the end of Pelandale Avenue at McHenry Avenue and terminates at Coffee Road. McHenry Avenue extends from Needham Street in downtown Modesto across the Stanislaus River into San Joaquin County to the north. The portion of McHenry Avenue between Needham Street and Patterson Road is designated State Route 108. McHenry Avenue is a four-lane arterial south of Kiernan Avenue/Claribel Road, and widens to six lanes near Standiford Avenue/Sylvan Avenue extending to Briggsmore Avenue, where it narrows again to four lanes south to Needham Street. Coffee Road is a four-lane minor arterial, extending from Scenic Drive near Dry Creek, to Patterson Road. Coffee Road becomes a two-lane rural road north of Claratina Road. Oakdale Road is a rural road adjacent to the western boundary of the Tivoli Specific Plan site. It extends from Riverbank on the north to Scenic Drive near Dry Creek in the southern part of Modesto. Oakdale Road becomes El Vista Avenue south of Scenic Drive and becomes Mitchell Road south of Yosemite Boulevard. Oakdale Road is two lanes north of Mable Avenue. Oakdale Road has two southbound lanes and one northbound lane between Mable Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. South of Sylvan Avenue, Oakdale Road is a four-lane roadway. Sylvan Avenue is a two-lane road adjacent to the southern boundary of the Tivoli Specific Plan site and widens to four lanes west of Oakdale Road. It extends from the terminus of Standiford Avenue at McHenry Avenue to Claus Road east of the project site. Claus Road extends from SR 132, Yosemite Boulevard, in southern Modesto to Atchison Road in Riverbank, to the north. Claus Road becomes Garner Road south of Yosemite Boulevard. South of East Briggsmore Avenue, Claus Road is a six-lane expressway. In the vicinity of the project site and north of East Briggsmore Avenue, it is two lanes. Roselle Avenue is on the eastern boundary of the Tivoli Specific Plan area. It is a two-lane rural road adjacent to the project site, and extends from East Briggsmore Avenue to Patterson Road in Riverbank. South of Belharbour Drive, Roselle Avenue has developed as a four-lane arterial. South of East Briggsmore Avenue, Roselle Avenue becomes Lakewood Avenue, developed mostly as a four-lane arterial south to Scenic Drive. TRANSIT SERVICE Modesto Area Express (MAX) and Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) provide bus services within the City of Modesto. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The Modesto Area Express does not currently provide service directly to the project site. Four MAX bus routes provide transit access to the periphery along Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue. Route 32, which operates near the site between Modesto’s Downtown Transit Center and Coffee Road, has two loop configurations serving Oakdale and Floyd Avenues: one loop is via Mable Avenue, and the other is via Sylvan Avenue. The Mable Loop has three bus stops that border the project site, at the intersections of Oakdale/Mable, Oakdale/Bridgewood, and Oakdale/Sylvan. The closest bus stop on the Sylvan Loop is at the intersection of Oakdale/Sylvan. Service hours are Monday through Friday from 6:15 a.m. to 7:15 p.m., with half-hour frequencies alternating between service to the Mable Loop and the Sylvan Loop. Weekend service is hourly, with service on the Mable Loop on Saturday and the Sylvan Loop on Sunday. Route 37 operates near the Tivoli Specific Plan site, with stops at Oakdale Road/Sylvan Avenue, and provides transit service between downtown Modesto and the Vintage Faire Mall. This route operates hourly Monday through Saturday between 6:45 a.m. and 5:45 p.m. There is no Sunday service on this route. Routes 24 and 34 provide service between downtown and Sylvan Avenue Monday through Saturday. These bus routes started service in July 2006. In the vicinity of the Tivoli Specific Plan area, these routes operate on a one-hour frequency serving Sylvan Avenue between Coffee Road and Millbrook Avenue east of Roselle Avenue. Route 24 operates in a clockwise direction from the Downtown Transit Station, and Route 34 operates in a counterclockwise direction. Weekday service hours are 6:30 a.m. to 7:55 p.m. for Route 24 and 6:00 a.m. to 7:25 p.m. for Route 34. No service is provided on Sunday. MAX operates the Modesto Altamont Commuter Express shuttle bus to transfer passengers from Modesto (at Vintage Faire Mall) to the Lathrop/Manteca train station. The Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) train provides passenger rail service between the San Joaquin Valley and the Santa Clara Valley. MAX also operates the Modesto Bay Area Rapid Transit Express (BART Express), transferring riders from Orchard Supply Hardware on Sisk Road to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. BART provides commuter rail service to San Francisco (including the San Francisco International Airport), Fremont, Oakland, Richmond, and Pittsburg/Bay Point. Stanislaus Regional Transit operates Runabouts, a transit service that combines fixed-route service, with fixed stops, and dial-a-ride service, with direct curb-to-curb service. Passengers can use this service between the fixed stops without prior arrangement. Advanced reservations must be made for curb service. Curbside service is available to the project site. Three Runabout routes serve the project vicinity: Waterford/Modesto, Turlock/Modesto, and Eastside. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. There are no pedestrian facilities on the project site. There are limited segments of sidewalks adjacent to existing development near the Tivoli Specific Plan Area, such as the sidewalk on the south side of Sylvan Avenue adjacent to a portion of the Village One development. Bicycle facilities include Class I bike paths (paved trails separated from roadways), Class II bike lanes (striped in roadways and signed), and Class III bike routes (bicycle routes in roadways with no separate striped lanes designated by signs only). There are no bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site. EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic conditions were analyzed at key intersections and on roadway segments adjacent to and in the vicinity of the project site. Forty-five existing intersections and four roadway segments were analyzed. Fifteen proposed intersections associated with the buildout of the Tivoli Specific Plan were analyzed as part of the impacts analysis. The intersections analyzed are shown on Figure IV.D.1, Traffic Analysis Locations, and listed below in Table IV.D.1. The roadway segments analyzed are those along Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Roselle Avenue; along Oakdale Road between Claratina Avenue and Sylvan Avenue; along Roselle Avenue between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue; and along Sylvan Avenue between Oakdale Road and Roselle Avenue. Claratina Avenue now ends at Coffee Road, but is proposed to be extended east to Roselle Avenue. The analysis locations in the project study area were selected based on their proximity to the project site; locations further from the project site were considered unlikely to experience significant changes due to traffic from development of the proposed Specific Plan. The analysis roadway segments are listed below and shown on Figure IV.D.1. Claratina Avenue - McHenry Avenue to Roselle Avenue Oakdale Road - Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue Roselle Avenue - Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue Sylvan Avenue - Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue Methodology The operations of roadway facilities are described using the term “level of service” (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. LOS ranges from LOS A, which indicates free flow or excellent conditions with short delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded conditions with ---PAGE BREAK--- NOT TO SCALE N SOURCE: Dowling Associates Inc., Turnstone Consulting LEGEND NOTE: See Table IV.D.1: Traffic Analysis Locations for corresponding intersection names. Claribel Rd Claratina Ave Rumble Rd O a k d a l e R d Floyd Ave E . B r i g g s m o r e A v e Manor Oak Dr Mable Ave Lancey Dr R o s e l l e A v e Briggsmore Ave M i l l b r o o k Hillglen Ave Kodiak Dr Plainview Rd M c H e n r y A v e Merle Ave B o y c e L n M c R e y n o l d s A v e C o f f e e R d d R t t i L A v e d R s u a l C T e r m i n a l A v e S a n t a F e A v e B e l h a r b o u r A v Kodiak Dr F i n e A v e Bridgewood L y d i a Crawford Rd Morrill Rd EXISTING INTERSECTION FUTURE INTERSECTION FUTURE FOADWAY RAILROAD PROJECT Tivoli A Tivoli B Tivoli C Tivoli E Tivoli D Milnes Rd Aria Wy Wood Sorrel Dr Sylvan M e a d ow s D r Sylvan Ave 38 39 24 26 31 34 33 41 44 11 57 28 20 4 7 50 10 32 36 13 21 2 15 22 1 60 51 37 17 23 12 14 30 3 6 35 29 48 42 45 46 19 27 25 54 55 56 58 59 43 52 49 40 53 18 47 8 9 5 16 IV.D.5 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.D.1: Traffic Analysis Locations Intersection Intersection 1. Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue 31. Oakdale Road at Lancey Drive 2. Boyce Lane at Sylvan Avenue 32. Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue 3. Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue 33. Oakdale Road at Manor Oak Drive 4. Claus Road at Claribel Road 34. Oakdale Road at Merle Avenue 5. Claus Road at Floyd Avenue opened 2006 35. Oakdale Road at Morrill Road 6. Claus Road at Milnes Road 36. Oakdale Road at Private Driveway(*) 7. Claus Road at Plainview Road 37. Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue 8. Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue 38. Oakdale Road at Tivoli E 9. Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue 39. Oakdale Road RSC-1 Driveway 1 10. Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue 40. Roselle Avenue and MHDR-2 Driveway 11. Coffee Road at Claribel Road 41. Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive 12. Coffee Road at Floyd Avenue 42. Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue 13. Coffee Road at Mable Avenue 43. Roselle Avenue at Claratina Avenue 14. Coffee Road at Rumble Road 44. Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road 15. Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue 45. Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue 16. Coffee Road at Sylvan Meadows Drive 46. Roselle Avenue at Hillglen Avenue 17. Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue 47. Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive 18. Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue 48. Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue 19. McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road 49. Roselle Avenue at NC-1 Driveway 20. McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue 50. Roselle Avenue at Plainview Road 21. McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue 51. Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue 22. McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue 52. Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C 23. Millbrook Avenue at Sylvan Avenue 53. Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D 24. NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue 54. RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue 25. Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way 55. RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue 26. Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue 56. RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina 27. Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue 57. Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road 28. Oakdale Road at Claribel Road 58. Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue 29. Oakdale Road at Crawford Road 59. Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue 30. Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue 60. Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Note: * Future intersection location. extremely long delays and stop-and-go conditions. Typically, LOS E and LOS F represent unacceptable levels of service. Stanislaus County General Plan policies identify LOS C or better as acceptable levels of service in areas outside of city spheres of influence. This EIR uses the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan policies, which require new development projects to prepare a detailed transportation study if the project could cause traffic to fall below LOS D on roadways predicted to operate at LOS D in 2025. Different methodologies are used to assess operating conditions for the various types of roadways analyzed, including signalized intersections, stop-controlled intersections, and roadway segments. Signalized Intersections Traffic conditions at signalized intersections were evaluated using the Transportation Research Board’s 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. This operation analysis uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table IV.D.2 presents the level of service descriptions for signalized intersections. Table IV.D.2: Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. < 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle > 10.0 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle Individual cycle failures begin to appear. > 20.0 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle or high V/C ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. > 35.0 to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. > 55.0 to 80.0 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle > 80.0 Note: < means less than; > means greater than. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Unsignalized Intersections and Roundabouts Traffic conditions at unsignalized (all-way STOP-controlled and side street STOP-controlled) intersections were also evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. With this methodology, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each STOP-controlled movement. At two-way or side street STOP-controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each controlled movement and for the entire intersection. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. At all-way STOP-controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for the entire intersection and for each approach. The delays for the entire intersection and for the movement or approach with the highest delay are reported. For roundabouts, the delays and resulting levels of service associated with unsignalized intersections are applied. Therefore, the values cited for STOP-controlled intersections are also used to determine the performance of roundabouts. Table IV.D.3 presents LOS descriptions for unsignalized intersections. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.D.3: Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Little or no delays < 10.0 B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays > 15.0 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays > 25.0 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays > 35.0 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Note: < means less than; > means greater than. Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000. Roadway Segments The existing operations of roadway segments were evaluated by comparing the hourly volumes to the hourly capacities to develop a volume-to-capacity ratio The hourly volumes for the roadway segments were obtained from the manual turning movement counts conducted at the study intersections. The capacity of each segment was based on the type of facility (expressway, arterial, or collector), number of lanes, type of traffic controls at the intersection, and maximum per-lane capacities from the Modesto Urban Area General Plan. The General Plan defines the classes of arterials and collectors as major and minor according to their number of travel lanes, design speed, and right-of-way width. Roadway segment capacities remain constant for each type of roadway facility. The roadway segment LOS criteria are presented in Table IV.D.4. Table IV.D.4: Level of Service Criteria for Roadway Segments Level of Service Volume / Capacity Ratio A < 0.60 B > 0.60 to 0.70 C > 0.70 to 0.80 D > 0.80 to 0.90 E > 0.90 to 1.00 F > 1.00 Note: < means less than; > means greater than. Source: City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan, 2003. Existing Intersection Levels of Service Intersection and roadway segment operations were analyzed during the morning and afternoon peak hours—the hour with the highest measured volume within the a.m. or p.m. peak period ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 (7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 Traffic volumes for existing intersections were obtained from counts conducted during May 2005. The existing volumes were used with the existing lane configurations and signal phasing as input to the LOS calculations to evaluate current operations at the 45 existing study intersections. The LOS analysis results are presented in Table IV.D.5. Locations where existing peak hour levels of service exceed the City standard of LOS D are shown in bold. For unsignalized intersections (two-way STOP and side street controlled intersections) the highest (worst) delay at the controlled approaches and the overall average delay are reported. For four-way STOP controlled intersections, the highest approach delay is reported. Unsignalized intersections operating at LOS F have reported delays of greater than 50 seconds. Signalized intersections operating at LOS F have reported delays of greater than 80 seconds. Existing a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning movement traffic volumes are shown in Appendix D.1, Traffic Impact Assessment, Figure 4, pp. 25 to 27. Two signalized intersections currently operate at unacceptable LOS E or F: Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue (LOS E in p.m. peak) McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue (LOS E in p.m. peak) Fifteen stop-controlled intersections currently operate at unacceptable LOS E or F in either the a.m., p.m., or both. Of these, the following 10 meet the criteria to have traffic signals installed: Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue (LOS F in a.m. peak; LOS F at the worst approach in p.m.) Claus Road at Milnes Road (LOS F at worst approach in a.m. and p.m.) Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue (LOS F at worst approach in a.m.; LOS F in p.m.) Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue (LOS E in a.m.; LOS F in p.m.) Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue (LOS F at worst approach in a.m.; LOS F in p.m.) McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue (LOS F at worst approach in a.m. and p.m.) Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive (LOS F at worst approach in a.m.) Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue (LOS F in a.m. and p.m.) Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue (LOS F in a.m.) Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue (LOS F at worst approach in a.m. and p.m.) ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.D.5: Existing Intersection Peak Hour Levels of Service Intersection Control AM PM Meets Signal Warrant AM/PM ID# Name Delay* LOS Delay* LOS 1 Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 107.0 (539.1) F(F) 5.9 (135.7) A(F) Y/N 2 Boyce Lane at Sylvan Avenue Signal 40.0 D 8.1 A 3 Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 30.8 C 29.2 C 4 Claus Road at Claribel Road Signal 24.4 C 25.6 C 5 Claus Road at Future Floyd Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 Claus Road at Milnes Road Unsignalized 32.7 (241.6) D(F) 8.3 (106.3) A(F) Y/Y 7 Claus Road at Plainview Road Unsignalized 0.3 ( 18.1) A(C) 0.4 ( 23.6) A(C) N/N 8 Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Unsignalized 12.4 (94.9) B(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) N/Y 9 Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue All-way STOP 42.4 E 60.6 F YY 10 Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue All-way STOP 75.4 F 51.6 F N/N 11 Coffee Road at Claribel Road All-way STOP 249.4 F 188.3 F N/N 12 Coffee Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 31.8 C 34.1 C 13 Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Signal 38.2 D 26.5 C 14 Coffee Road at Rumble Road Signal 39.8 D 31.6 C 15 Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 37.6 D 60.3 E 16 Coffee Road at Sylvan Meadows Drive Signal 14.2 B 24.8 C 17 Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 21.9 (95.0) C(F) 54.7 (320.5) F(F) Y/Y 18 Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 0.1 ( 21.1) A(C) 0.1 ( 14.2) A(B) N/N 19 McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road Signal 30.6 C 32.0 C 20 McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue Signal 29.5 C 32.8 C 21 McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Signal 39.3 D 59.3 E 22 McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 46.9 (271.0) E(F) 3.4 (77.0) A(F) Y/Y 23 Millbrook Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 2.6 ( 20.3) A(C) 1.2 (17.7) A(C) N/N 24 NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Unsignalized 1.7 (11.4) A(B) 1.6 (13.2) A(B) N/N 26 Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 36.3 D 30.6 C 27 Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 28 Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Signal 30.4 C 30.5 C 29 Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Signal 22.8 C 18.6 B 30 Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 48.9 D 51.5 D 31 Oakdale Road at Lancey Drive Signal 9.5 A 17.4 B 32 Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Signal 20.2 C 16.6 B 33 Oakdale Road at Manor Oak Drive Signal 20.0 B 10.4 B 34 Oakdale Road at Merle Avenue Signal 18.5 B 21.1 C 35 Oakdale Road at Morrill Road All-way STOP 23.2 C 44.7 E N/N 36 Oakdale Road at Private Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 37 Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 37.8 D 38.0 D 38 Oakdale Road at Tivoli E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 39 Oakdale Road at RSC-1 Driveway 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 40 Roselle Avenue and MHDR-2 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 41 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Unsignalized 23.8 (88.8) C(F) 3.8 (30.8) A(D) Y/N 42 Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 42.8 D 29.0 C 43 Roselle Avenue at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 44 Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 71.1 F 128.5 F N/N 45 Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue All-way STOP 58.1 F 61.1 F Y/N 46 Roselle Avenue at Hillglen Avenue Unsignalized 7.6 (21.6) A(C) 2.6 (17.3) A(C) N/N 47 Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive Unsignalized 3.1 (17.7) A(C) 0.4 (16.3) A(C) N/N 48 Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue All-way STOP 77.7 F 21.7 C Y/N 49 Roselle Avenue at NC-1 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 50 Roselle Avenue at Plainview Road Unsignalized 1.2 (12.2) A(B) 0.5 (11.7) A(B) N/N 51 Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue All-way STOP 93.0 F 103.2 F N/N 52 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 53 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 54 RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 55 RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a (continued) ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.D.5 (continued) Intersection Control AM PM Meets Signal Warrant ID# Name Delay* LOS Delay* LOS 56 RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 57 Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 15.3 C 25.1 D N/N 58 Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 59 Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 60 Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 16.9 (252.5) C(F) 4.5 (113.4) A(F) Y/N Notes: Boldface identifies locations with unacceptable LOS E or F. xx (xx) – Overall (Worst Case) delay and levels of service for unsignalized intersection. n/a = not applicable, as this location does not currently exist. * Delay in seconds per vehicle. Delay shown as >9999 indicates overflow delay; calculations using the HCM 2000 methodology are not capable of quantifying delay. Theoretically, estimated delay could exceed 9999 seconds. Source: Dowling Associates, Inc., October 2006 The following five unsignalized intersections operate at unacceptable LOS E or F but do not meet the criteria for installing traffic signals: Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue (LOS F in a.m. and p.m.) Coffee Road at Claribel Road (LOS F in a.m. and p.m.) Oakdale Road at Morrill Road (LOS E in p.m.) Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road (LOS F in a.m. and p.m.) Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue (LOS F in a.m. and p.m.) Existing Roadway Segment Level of Service Roadway segment volume to capacity ratios (V/C) were calculated based on the existing traffic volumes and the carrying capacities of the segments analyzed. Existing roadway segment peak hour levels of service are shown in Table IV.D.6. Subsegments of Claratina Avenue were analyzed between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road. Roselle Avenue was analyzed between Tivoli Road D and Sylvan Avenue. Subsegments of Sylvan Avenue were analyzed between Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Road, and subsegments of Oakdale Road were analyzed between Sylvan Avenue and future Claratina Avenue. Roadway segment capacity calculations are inherently conservative in that they are based on the number of lanes on the mainline segment and do not necessarily consider additional turn lanes, with their added capacity, at approaches to intersections. The following roadway segments currently operate at unacceptable LOS E or F for one or more of the subsegments analyzed: Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road (east- and westbound) Oakdale Road – Sylvan Avenue to future Claratina Avenue (northbound and southbound) Sylvan Avenue – Roselle Avenue to Oakdale Road (east- and westbound) ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.D.6: Existing Roadway Segment Peak Hour Levels of Service AM AM PM PM Roadway Segment Direction v/c LOS v/c LOS Claratina Avenue EB 1.053 F 1.250 F McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road WB 1.027 F 1.589 F Roselle Avenue NB 0.293 A 0.437 A Tivoli Road D to Sylvan Avenue SB 0.354 A 0.357 A Sylvan Avenue EB 0.189 A 0.336 A Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue WB 0.597 A 0.569 A Sylvan Avenue EB 0.447 A 0.937 E McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way WB 0.848 D 0.538 A Sylvan Avenue EB 0.587 A 0.971 E Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive WB 0.945 E 0.593 A Sylvan Avenue EB 0.619 B 1.030 F Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane WB 0.993 E 0.650 B Sylvan Avenue EB 0.697 B 1.153 F Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road WB 1.395 F 1.052 F Oakdale Road NB 0.800 D 0.918 E Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way SB 0.499 A 0.449 A Oakdale Road NB 0.439 A 0.538 A Bridgewood Way to Mable Avenue SB 0.211 A 0.270 A Oakdale Road NB 0.599 A 0.682 B Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue SB 0.941 E 0.700 C Note: NB = northbound, SB = southbound, WB = westbound and EB = eastbound Source: Dowling Associates, Inc., February 2006 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK City of Modesto General Plan The City of Modesto provides the following General Plan policies that guide the analysis of new development, and identify conditions when additional traffic studies are required. Policy V.6.a: Individual development projects that could affect conditions on traffic facilities predicted by the General Plan Traffic Analysis to achieve LOS or better in the year 2025 cannot cause, without further study, conditions to be worse than LOS at any time prior to the year 2025. If implementation of this Level of Service is impractical or infeasible, subsequent environmental review, including a Comprehensive Traffic Study, will be required. Policy V.6.b: Individual development projects that could affect conditions on traffic facilities predicted by the General Plan Traffic Analysis to achieve LOS shall not, without further study, cause conditions on those facilities to exceed LOS at any time prior to the year 2025. If implementation of this Level of Service is impractical or infeasible, subsequent environmental review, including a Comprehensive Traffic Study, will be required. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Policy V.6.c: Individual development projects that could affect conditions on traffic facilities predicted by the General Plan Traffic Analysis to achieve LOS shall not, without further study, cause further substantial degradation of conditions. Further substantial degradation shall be defined as an increase in the peak hour vehicle/capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.05 or greater for roadway segments or intersections whose v/c ratio is estimated to be 1.00 or higher by the traffic model. If implementation of this Level of Service is impractical or infeasible, subsequent environmental review, including a Comprehensive Traffic Study, will be required. Policy V.6.d: Designated City staff will review future development project proposals within the Baseline Developed Area, on a case-by-case basis. The following criteria will be applied to each proposal, and a determination made by the Public Works and Transportation Director regarding the acceptable or appropriate level of project impact on the circulation network. For proposed development projects that conform to the General Plan-approved land use for the site, it is assumed that the adopted performance standards for the circulation system within the area of impact will be maintained. For such projects, the designated City staff will establish an appropriate scope of study for the “Site Access Study,” which may address project impacts to adjacent or nearby intersections, as described in Policies 6-a through 6-c. The “Site Access Study” shall, at a minimum, analyze and resolve the following: Impacts to roadway intersections that are adjacent to the project site. Impacts to other intersections considered to have a key role in regulating access to the project site or substantial traffic flow between the project site and a key arterial roadway. Impacts to and design needs for access between internal and offsite vehicular circulation, and linkages to offsite bicycle / pedestrian circulation systems, and transit services. On-site parking needs and impacts to offsite parking, when applicable. Other operational or safety-related concerns and issues, including site access. The proposed development project will be designed to incorporate all recommendations of the “Site Access Study.” If implementation of the definitive recommendations of the Site Access Study is impractical or infeasible, a Focused Environmental Impact Report, including a Comprehensive Traffic Study, will be required. That study shall include the appropriate measures to update the General Plan Traffic Analysis for all subsequent Comprehensive Plans, and for development within the affected Baseline Developed Area and Redevelopment Area. For projects which do not conform to the General Plan-approved land use, further, supplemental environmental review may be necessary, in accordance with Section 21157.5 of the Public Resources Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Additionally, the City of Modesto provides the following Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan policies that guide the analysis of new development, and identify conditions when additional traffic studies are required. Those that apply to the project are shown below. Chapter II, Goal 1: Continue developing a City-wide non-motorized transportation system that serves the following uses as alternatives to motorized transportation: Commuter bicyclists; Recreational on-road bicyclist; Recreational off-road bicyclist; Walkers; Runners; Wheelchairs; Skateboarders; and Skaters. Chapter V. First Priority: Development on an initial core of non-motorized transportation facilities on a two-mile grid east to west and north to south throughout the City. Chapter V, A. First Priority: Initial Core Grid. Modesto’s citizens have expressed a clear desire for an initial core of cross-town non-motorized transportation facilities that provides bicyclist and others a clear, efficient, safe, and pleasant way to travel east to west and north to south through the City of Modesto. This master plan responds to this by recommending the development of a core grid of facilities about two miles apart. The recommended phasing of this initial first priority core system is as follows: An east to west corridor along Sylvan Avenue, part of Standiford Road and the Hetch-Hetchy Aqueduct. A north to south corridor along Roselle, Lakewood, and Lincoln Avenues (using the proposed pedestrian Lincoln Avenue bridge) and along McClure and Finch Roads. Chapter VI.B.8.a.: Bicycle Parking for New Development. Establish minimum standards for bicycle parking for all new public, semi-public, commercial and industrial development. Consider the provision of bicycle parking in lieu of a portion of required automobile parking. Incorporate these standards into development codes. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In general, a project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing or future baseline traffic load and capacity of the street system result in a substantial increase in either the v/c ratio on roads or congestion at intersections), or change the condition of an existing street through street ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.15 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 closure, or change in direction of travel) in a manner that would substantially affect access or traffic load and capacity of the street system. Based on criteria used by the City of Modesto and accepted professional practice for transportation engineering, a project-generated increase in traffic is considered to be significant if it would result in any of the following: Deterioration of a signalized intersection from LOS D (or better) to LOS E or LOS F, or an increase in the service volume of any approach by 5 percent or more for a signalized intersection operating at LOS E or LOS F under Baseline conditions, or an increase in average delay of 5 or more seconds for a signalized intersection operating at LOS E or LOS F under Baseline conditions.1 Deterioration of a controlled movement at an unsignalized intersection from LOS E or better to LOS F, or at intersections where a controlled movement already operates at LOS F, resulting in one of the following: 1. satisfaction of the peak hour volume signal warrant (supporting the need for a traffic signal) as a result of project traffic; 2. an increase in minor movement delay of 30 seconds or more; 3. if the peak hour volume signal warrant is already met without project traffic and delay cannot be measured, an increase in traffic of 10 or more vehicles per lane on any approach. Deterioration of a roadway segment from LOS D or better to LOS E or LOS F, or an increase in the volume to capacity ratio of 0.05 or more for a segment operating at LOS E or F under Baseline conditions. Inconsistencies with the City’s Bicycle Master Plan. Inadequate pedestrian facilities along the project frontage or lack of access between these facilities, parking areas, and the buildings within the project area. Parking demand exceeding the proposed parking supply. Installation of a new signal without achieving acceptable levels of service. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The impacts of traffic from the proposed project on the surrounding roadway system were assessed by establishing project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignments, in order to assign the project-generated traffic to roadway segments and intersections. This information was used in traffic computer models to compare traffic conditions without and with the project to determine the effects of project-generated traffic on the study intersections and roadways. The impacts analysis was carried out for an interim year 2012 when the Specific Plan area was assumed to be partially built and occupied in Phase 1 (approximately 725 fewer residential units 1 Stanislaus County considers LOS C or better to be acceptable service levels and levels of D or below to be unacceptable for intersections located in the County, as stated in Policy II.3 in the County Circulation Element of the General Plan. This EIR uses City of Modesto criteria and also identifies intersections that would not meet the County policy. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.16 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 and 104,550 fewer square feet of neighborhood and standard commercial space than full buildout), for the year 2017 when the Specific Plan area is assumed to be fully built and occupied in Phase 2, and for 2025 to assess future cumulative conditions with buildout of the Modesto General Plan, including the proposed project. For each analysis year, a Baseline condition was developed, and a Baseline-plus-Project scenario was analyzed.2 Future Baseline Intersection Volumes The City of Modesto travel demand model was used to estimate future traffic volumes in the year 2025. The model was first reviewed to determine whether recently-approved projects, such as the James C. Enochs High School, were included in future traffic volumes. The model was adjusted to add traffic from the Crossroads regional shopping center under construction north of the Tivoli Specific Plan project site. Transportation facility improvements included in the proposed project were not assumed to have been constructed in the baseline scenarios. Peak hour volumes were estimated from the daily traffic volume projections produced by the model. Background traffic volumes for 2012 and 2017 were estimated based on an annual growth factor calculated from the difference between existing 2005 traffic volumes and those established for 2025 from the model; this factor was multiplied by 7 and added to 2005 volumes to establish 2012 baseline volumes and multiplied by 12 and added to 2005 volumes to establish 2017 baseline volumes. Project Trip Generation The City’s travel demand model was the basis for establishing travel to and from the Tivoli Specific Plan area to analyze project-related traffic. The project land uses were added to the model and the model was run to provide daily travel information. The model-generated trip estimates were factored to match inbound and outbound trip estimates for the proposed project uses based on trip generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7th edition (2004). The ITE trip rates represent standard engineering practice for estimating how much traffic would be generated at the driveways into and out of the Specific Plan area. Using model-generated trips and factoring to match ITE trip rates allows the City’s model to be used to assign travel to the transportation network to establish trip distribution. Trip Distribution Trips generated by the proposed project were distributed throughout the roadway system in the study area based on the results of the City of Modesto’s travel demand model. Figure 3 in Appendix D.1, p. 17, shows the distribution of travel within the project site, beyond the project 2 Detailed information about the methodology used to establish the future peak hour baselines is provided in Chapter 2 of the Traffic Impact Assessment for the Tivoli Specific Plan, in Appendix D.1. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.17 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 site, and beyond the study area. Approximately 17 percent of the trips generated by the project would remain within the Specific Plan area, such as trips between residences and one of the regional shopping areas. The remaining 83 percent would travel through intersections in the study area. Of these, approximately 55 percent would travel through the study area and end at locations beyond the study area. Approximately 5.8 percent of project traffic that originates from the proposed regional shopping center at the corner of Oakdale Road and the extension of Claratina Avenue that is destined to locations to the northeast is expected to travel north along Oakdale Road to Claribel Road, east to Roselle Avenue, and then north again on Roselle Avenue, Terminal Avenue, or Claus Road. This would add traffic to Roselle Avenue at a location north of the project site, but would distribute north-eastbound traffic on the least congested route by avoiding the segment of Claratina Avenue between Oakdale and Roselle, and the segment of Roselle between Claratina Avenue and Claribel Road. 2012 Baseline Transportation System Improvements By the year 2012, some of the improvements to roadways and intersections identified in the Modesto Urban Area General Plan and in the Modesto Capitol Improvement Program are assumed to be completed. These improvements are included in the 2012 Baseline conditions and are listed here with their expected completion dates: Intersection Improvements by 2012 Install traffic signal at Claus Road and Floyd Avenue (fall 2007). Construct two-lane roundabout at Roselle Avenue and Floyd Avenue (fall 2008). Construct intersection improvements at Oakdale Road and La Force Drive (fall 2007). Install traffic signal at Roselle Avenue and Merle Avenue (fall 2012). Construct a two-lane roundabout at Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue (spring 2007). Construct improvements at Sylvan Avenue and Aria Way (fall 2010). Install a traffic signal at Claus Road and Sylvan Avenue (fall 2007). Construct a 2 x 1-lane roundabout at Sylvan Avenue and Millbrook Avenue (opened fall 2006). Construct a 2 x 1-lane roundabout at Sylvan Avenue and Litt Road (fall 2008). Construct intersection improvements at Sylvan Avenue and Claus Road (fall 2010). Construct a 2 x 2-lane roundabout at Claratina Avenue and Coffee Road. Construct a 2 x 1 lane roundabout at Roselle Avenue and Hillglen Avenue. Construct a 2 x 1-lane roundabout at Roselle Avenue and Kodiak Drive. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.18 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Roadway Improvements by 2012 Construct two lanes on Claratina Avenue between Coffee Road and Oakdale Road (fall 2007). Construct a median on Oakdale Avenue between Claratina Avenue and Mable Avenue. Widen Floyd Avenue from two to four lanes between Oakdale Road and Grouse Crossing Way (fall 2006). Widen Floyd Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Fine Avenue from two to four lanes (fall 2007). Construct four lanes on Floyd Avenue between Fine Avenue and Claus Road (opened fall 2006). Construct center turn lane on Oakdale Road between La Force Drive and Floyd Avenue (fall 2012). Construct third southbound lane on Oakdale Road between Floyd Avenue and East Briggsmore Avenue (fall 2012). Widen Roselle Avenue between Sylvan Avenue and Floyd Avenue from two to four lanes (fall 2008). Widen Briggsmore Avenue from two to four lanes between Oakdale Road and Claus Road (opened 2006). To be consistent with the analysis methodology applied in other recent EIRs, the use of two-lane roundabouts along portions of Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue means that these intersections are effectively analyzed as four-lane unsignalized arterials for roadway LOS. Year 2012 Project Transportation Improvements and Trip Generation Project Transportation Improvements The proposed project would create new intersections at the following six locations by 2012: Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue Tivoli Road E at Oakdale Road RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Oakdale Road The Specific Plan calls for the project to construct a new segment of Claratina Avenue between Oakdale Road and Tivoli Road A to the east, with three lanes in each direction. The project would fund widening Oakdale Road between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue to a six-lane arterial, extending the median from Mable Avenue to Sylvan Avenue, and with signals at key ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.19 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 intersections including the intersection of Oakdale Road and Claratina Avenue. The new intersection of Tivoli Road E with Oakdale Road would be provided with right turns in and out only, with outbound right turns served by an acceleration lane. The Specific Plan calls for completing Claratina Avenue to Roselle Avenue with three lanes in each direction as a signalized arterial, and the project includes an amendment to the General Plan that would change the designation of this segment of the roadway from a four-lane expressway to a six-lane arterial. The impacts of the amendment to the General Plan designation are analyzed in this transportation section of the EIR. The completed roadway is analyzed in the 2017 scenario, discussed later in this section of the EIR. The analyses of impacts and identification of mitigation measures for 2012 are based on assumptions related to when improvements would be needed as a result of expected growth in the surrounding area and as a result of project-generated traffic in Phase I of the development program. Therefore, this scenario is analyzed with Claratina Avenue extended only to Tivoli Road A. The Specific Plan calls for full length and width improvements to all perimeter arterial streets to occur with development; however, these improvements would be finally determined by the Facilities Master Plan and Infrastructure Financing Plan approved for the project. If full improvements to all perimeter arterial streets were to occur earlier than assumed in this transportation analysis, operations on roadway segments and at intersections would be the same as or better than those described in this EIR for the 2017-with-project scenario. Project Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by Phase 1 of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan was estimated based on ITE trip generation rates applied to the variety of uses proposed in the plan area. The project would add about 80,900 daily trips to internal roadways in the Specific Plan area and surrounding roadways. The project would generate about 4,600 a.m. peak hour trips and about 7,500 p.m. peak hour trips based on maximum density and development of the parcels included in this first phase (see Table IV.D.7). 2017 Baseline Transportation System Improvements The only improvements to the roadway and intersection systems that were assumed for the year 2017 baseline traffic analysis beyond those already assumed for year 2012 were for Oakdale Road between Claratina Avenue and Sylvan Avenue. This roadway segment was assumed to be expanded from one lane to three lanes in the southbound direction with the development on the west side of Oakdale Road north of Mable Avenue completing the development of the west side of Oakdale Road. This is consistent with the assumptions in the General Plan and the City’s transportation demand model. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.20 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.D.7: Year 2012 Project Trip Generation Person Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Designation1 Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total Very Low Density Residential 30 du 2 287 5 17 22 20 10 30 Low Density Residential 1,054 du 2 10,087 201 589 790 676 390 1,066 Medium Density Residential 833 du 2 7,322 142 417 559 376 275 651 Medium High Density Residential 504 du2 3,387 50 207 257 202 111 313 Neighborhood Commercial 0 gsf 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Commercial 74,488 gsf 3 3,198 47 30 77 134 145 279 Regional Serving Commercial - 1 600,000 gsf 3 36,520 870 708 1,578 1,558 1,608 3,166 Regional Serving Commercial - 2 300,000 gsf 3 18,260 435 356 791 780 805 1,585 Professional Office 31,363 gsf3 363 50 6 56 8 46 54 Elementary School 13.5 Acres 1097 196 162 358 111 128 239 Parks 19 Acres 380 38 38 76 38 38 76 Total 80,901 2,034 2,530 4,564 3,903 3,556 7,459 Notes: 1 Figure III.2 on p. III.8 of the Project Description shows land uses. 2 DU refers to total number of Dwelling Units. 3 gsf refers to Gross Square Footage, and trip generation rates are calculated per 1,000 square feet. The number of trips generated by the Regional Serving Commercial-2 (RSC-2) land use were based on 42 acres as originally proposed. The Specific Plan changed the size of the RSC-2 area to 40 acres and added the 2 acres to an adjacent Medium High Density Residential site. The change would yield fewer trips than were analyzed; therefore the change is covered by the analysis prepared for this EIR. Source: Dowling Associates, Inc., 2006 Year 2017 Project Transportation System Improvements and Trip Generation Project Transportation System Improvements The proposed project is assumed to create six new intersections between 2012 and 2017, at the following locations (see Figure IV.D.1, p. IV.D.5, for a map showing these new intersections): Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue NC-1 Driveway at Roselle Avenue Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C Roselle Avenue at MHDR-2 Driveway Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road D ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.21 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 By 2017, if not sooner, it is assumed that the project would extend Claratina Avenue from Tivoli Road A to Roselle Avenue, funding a six-lane, signalized arterial. That assumption is included in the analysis of intersection and roadway LOS in 2017. The project would fund improvement of northbound Oakdale Avenue between Claratina Avenue and Sylvan Avenue to three lanes and would extend the median from Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue to complete a six-lane arterial. This median would eliminate the opportunity to make left turns from driveways and unsignalized intersections along this segment. Left turns that may occur now, in 2006, would be shifted to the signalized intersection of Oakdale Road and Bridgewood Way. Project Trip Generation Full development of the Tivoli Specific Plan area in 2017 would generate approximately 91,000 daily trips (see Table IV.D.8). About 5,100 trips would be generated in the a.m. peak hour and about 8,400 trips would be generated in the p.m. peak hour. Table IV.D.8: Year 2017 Project Trip Generation Person Trips AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Designation1 Units Daily In Out Total In Out Total Very Low Density Residential 30 du2 287 5 17 22 20 10 30 Low Density Residential 1,322 du2 12,652 252 739 991 848 489 1,337 Medium Density Residential 833 du2 7,322 142 417 559 376 275 650 Medium High Density Residential 960 du2 6,451 96 394 490 384 211 595 Neighborhood Commercial 104,544 gsf3 4,489 66 42 108 188 204 392 Commercial 74,488 gsf3 3,198 47 30 77 134 145 279 Regional Serving Commercial - 1 600,000 gsf3 36,520 870 708 1,578 1,558 1,608 3,168 Regional Serving Commercial - 2 300,000 gsf3 18,260 435 356 791 780 804 1,584 Professional Office 31,363 gsf3 363 50 6 56 8 46 54 Elementary School 850 enrl4 1,097 196 162 358 111 128 238 Parks 19 acres 380 38 38 76 38 38 76 Total 91,019 2,197 2,909 5,106 4,445 3,958 8,403 Notes: 1 Figure III.2 on p. III.8 of the Project Description shows land uses. 2 du refers to total number of Dwelling Units. 3 gsf refers to Gross Square Footage, and trip generation rates are calculated per 1,000 square feet. 4 enrl refers to number of students enrolled. Source: Dowling, 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.22 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 2025 Baseline Transportation System Improvements The City’s 2025 traffic model assumes construction of all of the proposed roadways identified in the Circulation Element of the Urban Area General Plan. However, the current Capital Improvement Plan includes a list of improvements that were assumed to be in place by 2017. No additional improvements were assumed for the year 2025 cumulative scenario, to provide a conservative analysis. Year 2025 Project Transportation System Improvements and Trip Generation Project-related transportation system improvements were assumed to be completed by 2017, and no additional improvements were assumed for the 2025 cumulative analysis with the project. Travel generated by development in the Tivoli Specific Plan area in 2025 would be the same as that assumed for 2017, because the area is assumed to be fully built out and occupied by that year. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The results of the analysis of traffic at intersections and on roadway segments in the study area are presented by analysis year. The baseline intersection and roadway traffic conditions are discussed and then compared to the results of the analysis with project-generated traffic for each analysis year. Following this summary of analysis results, significant environmental impacts from project-generated traffic are described for each analysis year based on the Significance Criteria listed above on pp. IV.D.14-IV.D.15, and mitigation measures are identified where appropriate and feasible. Year 2012 Traffic Conditions Intersection Operations Intersection LOS conditions were calculated for 54 of the 60 study intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project in 2012. The remaining six intersections are assumed to be constructed between 2012 and 2017 and therefore are not included in the analysis of 2012 conditions. In general, traffic added by approved and pending projects, plus some additional regional growth, would increase delays at the study intersections, resulting in an increase in the number of intersections that would operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2012 baseline conditions (see Table IV.D.9). However, due to installation of traffic signals at some locations and/or the addition of roundabouts, traffic operations would improve at the intersections of Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue, Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue, Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue, Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue, and Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue, compared to existing conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.23 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.D. 9: Intersection Levels of Service 2012 Baseline and 2012 with Project 2012 Baseline No Project 2012 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Impact Y/N? 1 Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 69.5 (482.9) F(F) 18.1 (505.5) C(F) Roundabout 3.5 A 3.9 A N 2 Boyce Lane at Sylvan Avenue Signal 24.6 C 7.7 A Signal 26.7 C 7.6 A N 3 Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 70.5 E 93.4 F Signal 71.1 E 112.7 F Y 4 Claus Road at Claribel Road Signal 51.4 D 85.3 F Signal 53.0 D 86.1 F N2 5 Claus Road at Future Floyd Avenue Signal 17.4 B 24.9 C Signal 35.6 D 51.6 D N 6 Claus Road at Milnes Road Unsignalized 349.0 (5462.4) F(F) 211.7 (6939.1) F(F) Unsignalized 395.1 (6388.2) F(F) 383.0 (>9999) F(F) Y 7 Claus Road at Plainview Road Unsignalized 32.6 (722.7) D(F) 23.1 (1548.7) C(F) Unsignalized 16.6 (356.6) C(F) 16.0 (>1191.2) C(F) N2 8 Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Unsignalized 135.0 (4275.4) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized 71.2 (2027.4) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) N2 9 Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 136.7 F 247.1 F Signal 197.9 F 337.9 F Y 10 Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Roundabout 7.2 A 18.0 C Roundabout 18.6 C 58.9 F Y 11 Coffee Road at Claribel Road All-way STOP 1074.2 F 1293.0 F All-way STOP 1239.5 F 1524.2 F Y 12 Coffee Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 26.5 C 32.0 C Signal 27.0 C 32.1 C N 13 Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Signal 63.3 E 32.7 C Signal 71.2 E 34.2 C Y 14 Coffee Road at Rumble Road Signal 29.3 C 29.0 C Signal 28.8 C 29.2 C N 15 Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 37.7 D 72.3 E Signal 41.1 D 77.9 E Y 16 Coffee Road at Sylvan Meadows Drive Signal 12.9 B 24.6 C Signal 12.7 B 26.3 C N 17 Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 2.8 A 2.9 A Roundabout 3.0 A 3.1 A N 18 Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 0.3 (30.0) A(D) 0.5 (58.9) A(F) Unsignalized 0.1 (14.4) A(B) 0.1 (13.4) A(B) N 19 McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road Signal 257.7 F 251.1 F Signal 285.7 F 288.4 F Y 20 McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue Signal 91.3 F 142.7 F Signal 137.3 F 167.6 F Y 21 McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Signal 47.0 D 94.4 F Signal 55.5 E 97.2 F Y 22 McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 21.9 (234.1) C(F) 9.0 (272.8) A(F) Roundabout 3.0 A 3.2 A N 23 Millbrook Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 2.3 A 2.4 A Roundabout 2.5 A 2.6 A N 24 NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 25 Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Unsignalized 9.2 (145.2) A(F) 21.3 (257.2) C(F) Signal 32.5 C 54.6 D N 26 Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 43.4 D 45.2 D Signal 48.7 D 50.0 D N 27 Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Unsignalized 101.1 (613.1) F(F) 835.6 (2045.8) F(F) Signal 28.2 C 40.8 D N 28 Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Signal 177.8 F 218.9 F Signal 228.9 F 181.2 F Y 29 Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Signal 28.5 C 31.3 C Signal 29.6 C 35.6 D N 30 Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 33.6 C 44.8 D Signal 33.5 C 54.1 D N 31 Oakdale Road at Lancey Drive Signal 8.7 A 15.8 B Signal 7.8 A 20.7 C N 32 Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Signal 43.9 D 52.9 D Signal 22.8 C 87.1 F Y 33 Oakdale Road at Manor Oak Drive Signal 16.1 B 9.0 A Signal 15.2 B 8.6 A N 34 Oakdale Road at Merle Avenue Signal 17.0 B 19.4 B Signal 16.2 B 19.5 B N ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.24 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 2012 Baseline No Project 2012 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Impact Y/N? 35 Oakdale Road at Morrill Road All-way STOP 35.2 E 96.3 F All-way STOP 52.7 F 152.8 F Y 36 Oakdale Road at Private Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0 A(A) 0 A(A) N 37 Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 36.8 D 55.4 E Signal 53.6 D 75.1 E Y 38 Oakdale Road at Tivoli E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0 (0.0) A(A) 0.0 (0.0) A(A) N 39 Oakdale Road RSC-1 Driveway 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 1.9 ( 15.0) A(B) 3.3 (21.7) A(C) N 40 Roselle Avenue and MHDR-2 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 41 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Unsignalized 13.5 (76.3) B(F) 6.6 (78.6) A(F) Unsignalized 16.5 ( 91.7) C(F) 7.7 (104.7) A(F) Y3 42 Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 93.1 F 77.6 E Signal 92.3 F 90.1 F Y 43 Roselle Avenue at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 44 Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 677.9 F 900.6 F All-way STOP 922.0 F 1090.4 F Y 45 Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue Roundabout 2.2 A 2.5 A Roundabout 2.3 A 2.7 A N 46 Roselle Avenue at Hillglen Avenue Roundabout 5.6 A 7.4 A Roundabout 2.7 A 2.7 A N 47 Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive Roundabout 5.8 A 8.4 A Roundabout 2.4 A 2.6 A N 48 Roselle Avenue at Merrle Avenue Signal 34.8 C 29.9 C Signal 35.1 D 29.9 C N 49 Roselle Avenue at NC-1 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 50 Roselle Avenue at Plainview Road Unsignalized 2.0 (15.0) A(C) 3.4 (16.6) A(C) Unsignalized 2.8 (15.5) A(C) 5.5 (22.9) A(C) N 51 Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 2.6 A 3.1 A Roundabout 2.9 A 3.6 A N 52 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 53 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 3.6 A 5.6 A N 54 RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.2 (9.7) A(A) 0.5 (13.9) A(B) N 55 RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 17.7 B 23.8 C N 56 RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 (9.1) A(A) 0.8 (12.1) A(B) N 57 Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 339.0 F 576.5 F All-way STOP 388.6 F 673.0 F Y 58 Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 31.5 C 34.2 C N 59 Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 60 Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 13.4 (296.9) B(F) 13.1 (395.6) B(F) Roundabout 3.1 A 4.0 A N Note: n/a = not applicable xx (xx) – Overall (Worst Case) delay and levels of service for unsignalized intersections. 1 Delay in seconds per vehicle. Delay shown as >9999 indicates overflow delay; calculations using the HCM 2000 methodology are not capable of quantifying overflow delay. Theoretically, estimated delay could exceed 9999 seconds. 2 Project-generated traffic would not cause critical delay to increase by 5 or more seconds at signalized intersections or 30 seconds on minor approaches at unsignalized intersections. 3 Project-generated traffic contributes more than 10 vehicles per lane at unsignalized intersections operating at LOS F, with incremental delay less than 30 seconds. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.25 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Under existing conditions, a total of 17 intersections operate at LOS E or F. Compared to existing conditions, nine additional signalized intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F and four additional unsignalized intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F during the a.m. peak hour, the p.m. peak hour, or both under 2012 baseline conditions. A total of five intersections would improve to acceptable levels of service with improvements assumed to be in place by 2012. Overall, a total of 25 intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS in 2012 without project-generated traffic. All intersections with new roundabouts in 2012 would operate at acceptable LOS during the peak hours. With project-generated traffic, three locations would improve to acceptable LOS based on the addition of roundabouts at the intersections of Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue, McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue, and Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue. The unsignalized intersection of Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue would operate at LOS A(B) with the project because left turns from Lydia Lane would be prohibited, resulting in an improvement from unacceptable levels of service in baseline conditions. The intersection of Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way would improve to acceptable LOS D or better with the construction of additional northbound lanes on Oakdale Road as part of the project. A total of 21 intersections would operate at LOS E or F in the a.m., p.m. or both in 2012 with project-generated traffic. Two of the 21 intersections operated at acceptable LOS under 2012 baseline conditions and would deteriorate to unacceptable LOS E or F with project traffic: Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue, and Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue. The remaining 19 intersections already operated at LOS E or F under 2012 baseline conditions. Roadway Segment Operations By 2012, several roadway segments are assumed to be improved, with additional lanes and/or signalization at intersections, under baseline conditions without the proposed project. Development of most of the Tivoli Specific Plan project site is assumed to include additional improvements. Roselle Avenue would be widened from one lane in each direction to two lanes between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue. Sylvan Avenue would be widened from one lane to two in each direction between Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Road. The project would widen Oakdale Road to three lanes in each direction between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue with a median, and signalize the intersection at Bridgewood Way. The median would prevent left turns at new intersections along this segment of Oakdale Avenue added as part of the project, such as Tivoli Road E. The project would extend Claratina Avenue from Oakdale Road to Tivoli Road A as a six-lane arterial with signals installed at three new intersections (at Oakdale Road, Private Driveway 2, and Tivoli Road These improvements would in some cases improve operations compared to existing levels of service on the study area roadway segments. Compared to existing conditions, Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road would continue to operate at LOS F in 2012 under baseline conditions (see Table IV.D.10). ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.26 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.D.10: Roadway Segment Levels of Service 2012 Baseline and 2012 with Project 2012 Baseline 2012 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS AM PM Impact Y/N? Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road EB 1 rural road 1.139 F 2.360 F 1 rural road 1.507 F 2.690 F 0.368 0.330 Y McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road WB 1 rural road 2.281 F 2.076 F 1 rural road 2.534 F 2.277 F 0.253 0.201 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road EB 1 rural road 0.363 A 1.242 F 1 rural road 0.804 D 1.849 F 0.441 0.607 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road WB 1 rural road 1.362 F 0.999 E 1 rural road 1.730 F 1.211 F 0.368 0.212 Y Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.386 A 0.887 D n/a n/a N Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 signalized arterial 0.429 A 0.372 A n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway # 1 to Private Driveway #2 EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.300 A 0.730 C n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #1 to Private Driveway #2 WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 signalized arterial 0.429 A 0.372 A n/a n/a N Private Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.213 A 0.607 B n/a n/a N Private Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 signalized arterial 0.366 A 0.265 A n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.161 A 0.528 A n/a n/a N RSC-1 driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 1 signalized arterial 0.366 A 0.266 A n/a n/a N Roselle Avenue Sylvan Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.158 A 0.169 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.650 B 0.596 A 0.492 0.427 N Sylvan Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.090 A 0.221 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.312 A 0.876 D 0.223 0.656 N Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.284 A 0.509 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.333 A 0.481 A 0.049 -0.029 N Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.453 A 0.418 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.403 A 0.481 A -0.050 0.063 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.290 A 0.585 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.007 A 0.002 A -0.283 -0.583 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.526 A 0.430 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.002 A 0.002 A -0.524 -0.428 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.379 A 0.643 B 2 unsignalized arterial 0.439 A 0.693 B 0.060 0.050 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.599 A 0.455 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.633 B 0.564 A 0.034 0.110 N Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane EB 1 unsignalized arterial 0.732 C 1.361 F 1 unsignalized arterial 0.812 D 1.447 F 0.080 0.086 Y Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane WB 1 unsignalized arterial 1.262 F 0.963 E 1 unsignalized arterial 1.316 F 1.122 F 0.054 0.159 Y Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road EB 1 unsignalized arterial 0.769 C 1.453 F 1 unsignalized arterial 0.842 D 1.543 F 0.073 0.090 Y Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road WB 2 signalized arterial 0.871 D 0.701 C 2 signalized arterial 0.921 E 0.814 D 0.050 0.113 Y Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way NB 1 signalized arterial 1.791 F 1.333 F 3 signalized arterial 0.386 A 0.887 D n/a n/a N Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way SB 2 signalized arterial 0.728 C 0.983 E 3 signalized arterial 0.515 A 0.372 A n/a n/a N Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E NB 1 rural road 1.321 F 1.171 F 3 signalized arterial 0.300 A 0.730 C n/a n/a N Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E SB 2 signalized arterial 0.499 A 0.807 D 3 signalized arterial 0.515 A 0.372 A n/a n/a N ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.27 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 2012 Baseline 2012 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS AM PM Impact Y/N? Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue NB 1 signalized arterial 1.248 F 1.097 F 3 signalized arterial 0.213 A 0.607 A n/a n/a N Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue SB 2 rural road 0.283 A 0.563 A 3 signalized arterial 0.439 A 0.265 A n/a n/a N Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue NB 1 rural road 1.446 F 1.367 F 3 signalized arterial 0.161 A 0.528 A n/a n/a N Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue SB 1 signalized arterial 1.301 F 1.820 F 3 signalized arterial 0.439 A 0.266 A n/a n/a N Note: n/a = not applicable does not exist in baseline Source: Dowling, 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.28 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Sylvan Avenue would improve between McReynolds Avenue and Wood Sorrell Avenue with the addition of one more lane in each direction; Sylvan Avenue between Lydia Lane and Oakdale Road would improve in the westbound direction with the addition of a second lane in that direction but would remain LOS F in the p.m. peak hour in the eastbound direction. Roselle Avenue would continue to operate at acceptable LOS A. Oakdale Road between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue would generally deteriorate from acceptable LOS A or B to unacceptable LOS E or F in either the a.m. or p.m. peak hour. Note that although some subsegments of a roadway may operate at acceptable levels of service, if one subsegment operates at unacceptable LOS, the entire segment is identified as operating above its capacity. This is because the entire roadway segment would need to be improved in order to provide the needed capacity; to improve only one subsegment would cause bottlenecks at other subsegments along the roadway and would not result in improved service levels. With project-generated traffic in 2012, Roselle Avenue would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service.3 Claratina Avenue is assumed to be constructed with three lanes in each direction and between Oakdale Road and Tivoli Road A as part of the proposed project. This new portion of Claratina Avenue would serve the new regional commercial shopping center and portion of the new residential area. The Specific Plan includes construction of the entire six-lane arterial between Oakdale Road and Roselle Avenue; this expansion is analyzed in the 2017 scenario, discussed below, when the second phase of development is assumed and the Specific Plan area is fully built out. Claratina Avenue between Oakdale Road and Tivoli Road A would operate at acceptable LOS A through C in 2012 with the project. The portion of Sylvan Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Wood Sorrell Drive would continue to operate at acceptable LOS A or B with the project, similar to existing conditions or improved compared to existing LOS. On Sylvan Avenue between Wood Sorrell Drive and Oakdale Road, operations would generally deteriorate from LOS D to E or from E to F compared to existing conditions; those subsegments already operating at LOS F in 2012 without the project would show substantial increases in delay. Therefore, Sylvan Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Road would be considered to operate below acceptable levels of service. The project is assumed to improve Oakdale Road from two to three lanes in the northbound direction in 2012, resulting in improved LOS in that direction. The southbound direction would deteriorate from LOS A under existing conditions, to C and F without the project and would improve to LOS A in 2012 with project-generated traffic and project-related roadway improvements. 3 The subsegment between Tivoli Road C and Tivoli Road D would operate at LOS D in the p.m. peak hour, exceeding the Stanislaus County criterion of LOS C. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.29 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact D.1. Construction and occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed project would result in significant impacts at study intersections adjacent to and near the project site in 2012. (Significant and Unavoidable) Project traffic would cause significant impacts at 18 of the 21 intersections operating at unacceptable levels: Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Coffee Road at Claribel Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue4 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road The remaining three intersections operating at unacceptable LOS E or F either would not result in an increase in delay by 5 seconds or more at a signalized intersection or would not result in an increase in delay of 30 seconds or more for the minor movement at an unsignalized intersection. The signalized intersection of Claus Road at Claribel Road would continue to operate at LOS F, but would not experience an increase in delay of five seconds or more with project-generated traffic. The unsignalized intersections of Claus Road at Plainview Road and Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue would operate at LOS F, but would not experience an increase in delay of 30 seconds or more at the minor movements of the intersection. Thus, these three intersections would 4 Note that the intersection of Roselle Avenue and Briggsmore Avenue was improved in 2006, after the transportation analysis was completed. Therefore, although Table 9 shows LOS E and/or F in the p.m. peak hour, the improvements are expected to result in LOS D or better through 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.30 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 operate at unacceptable levels of service but would not meet the criteria established for significant traffic impacts. Mitigation measures are available that would result in improved levels of service for all 18 of the impacted intersections. However, in many instances these mitigation measures are infeasible and the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. There are four main reasons that the measures are infeasible: a) the location may be outside the jurisdiction of the City of Modesto; b) although there may be an existing Capital Facilities Fee program (CFF), funding may be fully committed and some intersections may operate at unacceptable service levels for a substantial period of time before mitigation measures could be funded and implemented; c) there may be no funding mechanism identified, the project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small, and other funding may not be available in the future; and d) the measure may be physically infeasible if additional right-of-way is required and substantial property acquisition were necessary in already developed areas. Therefore, while mitigation measures would improve LOS at all 18 intersections, many are identified as significant/unavoidable impacts because implementation of mitigation is not assured. In cases where a lack of funding cannot be identified, it is possible that new funding sources will be found in the future; for these locations, mitigation may become feasible in the future and the impact may be mitigated. Because mitigation is not assured as of the writing of this Draft EIR, these mitigation measures are treated as infeasible and impacts at these locations are identified as significant and unavoidable. In some cases implementation of the mitigation measure would improve LOS to D, which would meet the City of Modesto criterion for acceptable operations but would exceed the Stanislaus County criterion of LOS C or better. Mitigation Measure D.1a Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue: Widen the intersection by adding a third northbound through lane and a third southbound through lane. (A second westbound left turn lane was placed into service on 3/23/06, after the transportation analysis was completed; therefore it was not assumed in the analysis.) Adjust signal timing to allow for overlap on all approaches. Implementation of this measure would result in LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The City has established a Capital Facilities Fee program (CFF) to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.31 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.1b Claus Road at Milnes Road: Signalize the intersection. Add an exclusive northbound through lane to the intersection. The City shall establish a mechanism for developers to pay a fair share of the cost of these improvements. Implementation of this measure would result in LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The StanCOG Policy Board included funding for a traffic signal and some intersection improvements at this location in their action on September 13, 2006. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of other improvements to Claus Road but not Milnes Road at this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. A funding mechanism must be developed for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements that are not already funded. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.1c Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue: Add a second eastbound left turn lane, a second northbound left turn lane, and a second southbound through lane. Adjust signal timing to allow for overlap on all approaches. Implementation of this measure would result in LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.32 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure D.1d Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue: At 75 percent buildout of the Tivoli Specific Plan area, the City shall conduct a traffic study, to be funded by the project developers, to determine the adequacy of the roundabout as intersection traffic control. If the approach volumes exceed the roundabout capacity, the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. Implementation of this measure would result in acceptable levels of service of LOS D or better at the intersection. Mitigation Measure D.1e Coffee Road at Claribel Road: Widen the intersection by adding exclusive left- and right-turn lanes to the northbound and westbound approaches and two exclusive left- and right-turn lanes to the eastbound and westbound approaches. Convert shared lanes to exclusive through lanes at all four approaches and signalize the intersection. Implementation of this measure would result in LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction, in Stanislaus County; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to roadways within the County. It is not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location. The City has established a CFF program to cover its share of the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution to improvements at this intersection would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, other contributions to existing funding mechanisms are not assured and therefore may not be available for this location when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.1f Coffee Road at Mable Avenue: The City shall add exclusive westbound left and right turn lanes. With this measure, the intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS C in the a.m. peak hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.33 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure D.1g Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue: Add exclusive eastbound right turn lane. Implementation of this measure would result in LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.1h McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road (Claribel Road becomes Kiernan Avenue west of McHenry Avenue): Add second left turn lanes on northbound and southbound approaches; add second and third through lanes on eastbound and westbound approaches. Implementation of these measures would result in LOS D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. McHenry Avenue is State Route 108 and Kiernan Avenue west of McHenry Avenue is State Route 219 and therefore both are under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements on these roadways. The City has established a CFF program to cover its share of the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. Stanislaus County has funding in its Public Facilities Fund (PFF) that is intended to cover improvements to SR 108 and Caltrans has identified funding for improvements to SR 219 that may be available for this intersection. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.1i McHenry Avenue and Claratina Avenue: Add third and fourth northbound and southbound through lanes. Add third eastbound and westbound through lanes. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.34 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 With these mitigation measures, the intersection would operate at LOS D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. McHenry Avenue is State Route 108 and therefore is under Caltrans jurisdiction; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements on this roadway. The City has established a CFF program for a grade separated interchange that would cover its share of the cost of some improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. State funding for SR108 may be available for a portion of the improvements at this intersection. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While some improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds are not programmed, may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS, and would require amendments to the General Plan. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.1j McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue: Add second northbound and southbound left turn lane; add fourth northbound and southbound through lanes. With these measures the intersection would operate at LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. This mitigation measure is infeasible. McHenry Avenue is State Route 108 and therefore is under Caltrans jurisdiction; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements on this roadway. The City has established a CFF program to cover its share of the cost of some improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The CFF program does not include the fourth northbound and southbound through lanes. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While some improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds are not programmed and are not expected to be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. In addition, implementation of all of the features of this measure would require substantial acquisition of private property, significantly impacting existing development at the intersection including a video store, two banks and a gas station. Therefore the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure D.1k Oakdale Road at Claribel Road: Add a second northbound exclusive left turn lane and second southbound through lane; add second and third eastbound and westbound through lanes. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.35 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 With these mitigation measures, the intersection would operate at LOS D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersection is located outside the City of Modesto’s jurisdiction in Stanislaus County and the City of Riverbank; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to roadways within the County or another city. While a portion of the intersection may be within the City’s jurisdiction following annexation, it is not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location. The City has established a CFF program to cover its share of the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The City of Riverbank may also have funds for this intersection. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. Other contributions to existing funding mechanisms are not assured and therefore may not be available for this location when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. While some improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.1l Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue: The project developers shall add a second southbound through lane. With this measure, the intersection would improve from LOS F to LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation Measure D.1m Oakdale Road at Morrill Avenue: Add exclusive southbound and northbound left turn lanes. Signalize the intersection. With these measures, the intersection would operate at LOS C in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The StanCOG Policy Board approved funding for the City of Riverbank to install a signal and make improvements at this intersection at their September 13, 2006 meeting. The intersection is outside the City of Modesto jurisdiction and the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements. City of Riverbank and County funding alone may not fully mitigate impacts at this location. Until funding is identified that would fully mitigate this impact, mitigation measures are treated as potentially infeasible, and impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.36 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure D.1n Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue: The project developers shall add a second eastbound left lane and third southbound through lane. With this measure, the intersection would improve from LOS E to LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation Measure D.1o Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue: Add second eastbound and westbound through lanes. This measure was placed into service 3/26/06, after the transportation analysis was completed; therefore this mitigation measure is no longer necessary. Mitigation Measure D.1p Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive: Add northbound and southbound exclusive left- and right-turn lanes, and signalize the intersection. With these measures, the intersection would improve to LOS B in the a.m. peak hour and LOS A in the p.m. peak hour. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. Funding is available to improve the intersection within the next year as part of the project to install a roundabout at Roselle Avenue and Floyd Avenue, although signalization is expected to occur several years in the future. While signalization would be expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.1q Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road: Add exclusive left turn lanes on all approaches to the intersection. Add northbound and southbound exclusive right turn lanes. Add a second, exclusive through lane on eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection. Implementation of these measures would result in improvements from LOS F to LOS D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.37 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction, in Stanislaus County; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to roadways within the County. It is not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution to improvements at this intersection would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.1r Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road: Add exclusive left turn lanes at all four approaches to the intersection. Add a second eastbound through lane, and signalize the intersection. With these measures, the intersection would improve to LOS D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction in Stanislaus County; the City does not have authority to design and construct improvements in the County. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Impact D.2. Construction and occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed project would result in significant impacts on roadway segments adjacent to and near the project site in 2012. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project-generated traffic in 2012 would result in significant impacts on the operation of Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road, on Sylvan Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Road, and on Oakdale Road between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue. Roselle Avenue would operate at acceptable LOS A or B in 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.37a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure D.2 To mitigate the roadway impacts it would be necessary to widen all three roadways. The measures listed below are generally less extensive than would be required to achieve LOS D using the roadway LOS methodology of volume-to-capacity ratio alone. However, the ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.38 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 controlling factor in roadway congestion is the intersection at any approach. Therefore, when the intersection operates adequately or mitigation measures have been identified to improve intersection operation to acceptable levels, the mitigation measures for significant impacts to roadway segments have been sized to match the through lanes on the intersection approaches. Note that while it would be sufficient to improve Claratina Avenue to a three-lane signalized expressway (two lanes eastbound and one lane westbound) between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road, because City of Modesto standards do not include a three-lane arterial, a four-lane facility is included in the mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure D.2a Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road: The project developers shall add a second eastbound lane and a second westbound lane. Mitigation Measure D.2b Sylvan Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Road: The project developers shall add a second westbound lane. Mitigation Measure D.2c Oakdale Road between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue: The project developers shall improve the southbound direction to three lanes between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue. (Improvements to the northbound direction to three lanes are assumed to be part of the project, to be implemented by project developers, and therefore do not need to be identified in this mitigation measure.) Implementation of these measures, plus implementation of the intersection mitigation measures along these roadway segments that are identified under Impact D.1, would reduce impacts on roadway segments to a less-than-significant level. Year 2017 Traffic Conditions Intersection Operations Intersection levels of service and delay were calculated for the 45 existing study intersections for the 2017 Baseline conditions, and for all 60 of the study intersections for 2017 with full development of the Tivoli Specific Plan area. The same improvements assumed in 2012 for some intersections (see pp. IV.D.18 to IV.D.19), including construction of roundabouts and installation of signals, would result in improvements in levels of service at the same five locations in 2017 (see p. IV.D.26). As noted on p. IV.D.20, no additional improvements were assumed for the ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.39 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 2017 Baseline conditions. Because there would be more traffic in many locations in 2017 than in 2012 due to growth in the area and in the region, without the proposed project more intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F in this analysis year. Compared to existing conditions where 17 intersections operate at LOS E or F, and to 2012 Baseline conditions where 22 intersections would operate at LOS E or F, in 2017 30 intersections would operate at LOS E or F under baseline conditions (see Table IV.D.11).5 The roundabout at Coffee Road and Claratina Avenue and the new roundabout at Roselle Avenue and Tivoli Road C would operate at LOS F (these are two of the 30 intersections operating at unacceptable LOS). All other intersections with roundabouts would operate at acceptable levels of service in 2017. The project is assumed to include all of the improvements listed on p. IV.D.18-VI.D.19 for 2012, and would create new intersections at the six additional locations listed on p. IV.D.21. The extension of Claratina Avenue to Roselle Avenue as a six-lane arterial is analyzed in the 2017 project scenario, although it may be constructed earlier. With project-generated traffic, three intersections would improve to acceptable LOS compared to 2017 baseline conditions with the addition of roundabouts at the intersections of Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue, McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue, and Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue. The unsignalized intersection of Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue would improve to LOS A or B with a prohibition of left turns from Lydia Lane. A total of 26 intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F with the project. No intersections that would operate at acceptable LOS under 2017 baseline conditions would deteriorate to unacceptable LOS with the project. Two new intersections, Oakdale Road at Tivoli Road E and Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C, would operate at LOS F in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The remaining 24 intersections operated at unacceptable LOS E or F under 2017 Baseline conditions. Roadway Segment Operations The same roadway improvements described for the 2012 Baseline would be in place for the 2017 Baseline conditions, including additional lanes along Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue. The project is assumed to have widened Oakdale Road to include three southbound lanes and three northbound lanes between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue in 2012; these improvements are also assumed to be part of the project scenario in 2017. 5 The intersections at Oakdale Road and Claratina Avenue, Oakdale Road and Floyd Avenue, and Roselle Avenue and Merle Avenue would operate at LOS D, and would not meet the Stanislaus County standard of LOS C; these intersections are within Modesto’s jurisdiction and would meet the City’s standard of LOS D. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.40 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.D.11: Intersection Levels of Service 2017 Baseline and 2017 with Project 2017 Baseline No Project 2017 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Impact Y/N? 1 Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 145.0 (1007.0) F(F) 56.5 (1681.1) F(F) Roundabout 3.8 A 4.0 A N 2 Boyce Lane at Sylvan Avenue Signal 26.9 C 9.7 A Signal 29.0 C 9.8 A N 3 Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 160.5 F 220.6 F Signal 164.7 F 237.7 F Y 4 Claus Road at Claribel Road Signal 165.6 F 245.1 F Signal 181.9 F 267.3 F Y 5 Claus Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 88.6 F 169.9 F Signal 207.9 F 274.1 F Y 6 Claus Road at Milnes Road Unsignalized 2131.0 (>9999) F(F) 2906.4 (>9999) F(F) Unsignalized 3368.2 (>9999) F(F) 8253.1 (>9999) F(F) Y 7 Claus Road at Plainview Road Unsignalized 627.5 (>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized 535.4 (>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Y3 8 Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) N2 9 Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 238.2 F 407.7 F Signal 323.4 F 504.7 F Y 10 Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Roundabout 208.0 F 206.2 F Roundabout 1552.5 F 436.2 F Y 11 Coffee Road at Claribel Road All-way STOP 1850.9 F 2187.3 F All-way STOP 2018.0 F 2461.6 F Y3 12 Coffee Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 28.1 C 34.2 C Signal 29.4 C 36.1 D N 13 Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Signal 118.4 F 59.4 E Signal 115.4 F 62.6 E N2 14 Coffee Road at Rumble Road Signal 29.9 C 30.4 C Signal 29.4 C 30.4 C N 15 Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 42.2 D 83.4 F Signal 43.5 D 88.5 F Y 16 Coffee Road at Sylvan Meadows Drive Signal 12.3 B 25.3 C Signal 13.3 B 26.7 C N 17 Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 3.3 A 3.3 A Roundabout 3.1 A 3.6 A N 18 Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 0.6 ( 43.2) A(E) 1.7 (183.8) A(F) Unsignalized 0.1 ( 14.3) A(B) 0.1 ( 13.0) A(B) N 19 McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road Signal 500.4 F 486.4 F Signal 528.4 F 500.5 F Y 20 McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue Signal 237.1 F 310.1 F Signal 299.4 F 348.1 F Y 21 McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Signal 74.8 E 143.6 F Signal 85.9 F 163.6 F Y 22 McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 53.3 (655.0) F(F) 40.0 (1220.5) E(F) Roundabout 3.0 A 3.3 A N 23 Millbrook Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 2.7 A 2.8 A Roundabout 3.0 A 3.1 A N 24 NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 1.7 A 4.6 A N 25 Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Unsignalized 142.8 (2635.9) F(F) 277.4 (3497.5) F(F) Signal 34.1 C 118.2 F Y 26 Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 62.1 E 86.2 F Signal 76.9 E 90.3 F Y 27 Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Signal 31.9 C 38.8 D N 28 Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Signal 389.9 F 468.1 F Signal 387.9 F 389.2 F N2 29 Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Signal 45.9 D 95.3 F Signal 34.2 C 63.6 E N2 30 Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 72.7 E 126.3 F Signal 41.0 D 100.4 F N2 31 Oakdale Road at Lancey Drive Signal 8.8 A 16.0 B Signal 8.4 A 20.8 C N 32 Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Signal 122.8 F 134.0 F Signal 11.2 B 33.3 C N 33 Oakdale Road at Manor Oak Drive Signal 15.2 B 8.6 A Signal 14.4 B 7.5 A N 34 Oakdale Road at Merle Avenue Signal 16.8 B 19.6 B Signal 16.2 B 19.9 B N ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.41 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 2017 Baseline No Project 2017 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Impact Y/N? 35 Oakdale Road at Morrill Road All-way STOP 80.2 F 179.0 F All-way STOP 89.1 F 284.1 F Y 36 Oakdale Road at Private Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0 (0.0) A(A) 0.0 (0.0) A(A) N 37 Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 44.7 D 74.6 E Signal 52.7 D 100.6 F Y 38 Oakdale Road at Tivoli E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0 (0.0) A(A) 0.0 (0.0) A(A) N 39 Oakdale Road RSC-1 Driveway 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0 (0.0) A(A) 0.0 (0.0) A(A) N 40 Roselle Avenue and MHDR-2 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.4 (9.8) A(A) 0.2 (13.2) A(B) N 41 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Unsignalized 41.2 (239.0) E(F) 23.7 (289.3) C(F) Unsignalized 47.3 (269.7) E(F) 27.7 (399.2) D(F) Y3 42 Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 75.6 E 65.2 E Signal 67.9 E 63.5 E N2 43 Roselle Avenue at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 2.3 A 2.9 A N 44 Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 1187.6 F 1521.8 F All-way STOP 1281.8 F 1513.3 F Y 45 Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue Roundabout 2.4 A 3.0 A Roundabout 2.5 A 3.2 A N 46 Roselle Avenue at Hillglen Avenue Roundabout 3.0 A 2.9 A Roundabout 3.0 A 3.1 A N 47 Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive Roundabout 2.7 A 2.8 A Roundabout 2.8 A 3.1 A N 48 Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue Signal 46.3 D 38.7 D Signal 48.2 D 40.1 D N 49 Roselle Avenue at NC-1 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.1 ( 9.1) A(A) 0.8 (14.0) A(B) N 50 Roselle Avenue at Plainview Road Unsignalized 2.9 (16.8) A(C) 6.3 (23.5) A(C) Unsignalized 2.4 ( 16.3) A(C) 2.4 (4.9) A(B) N 51 Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 3.2 A 4.5 A Roundabout 3.8 A 5.2 A N 52 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 141.5 F 72.4 F Y 53 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 6.1 A 16.9 C N 54 RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 ( 10.6) A(B) 1.7 (31.9) A(D) N 55 Private Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 19.0 B 32.1 C N 56 RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 ( 10.1) A(B) 0.8 (20.3) A(C) N 57 Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 785.9 F 1153.5 F All-way STOP 758.1 F 1182.4 F Y3 58 Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 33.1 C 31.5 C N 59 Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 15.3 B 8.9 A N 60 Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 33.4 (735.3) D(F) 37.5 (1219.8) E(F) Roundabout 2.8 A 3.5 A N Note: n/a = not applicable xx (xx) – Overall (Worst Case) delay and levels of service for unsignalized intersections. 1 Delay in seconds per vehicle. Delay shown as >9999 indicates overflow delay; calculations using the HCM 2000 methodology are not capable of quantifying delay. Theoretically, estimated delay could exceed 9999 seconds. 2 Project-generated traffic would not cause critical delay to increase by 5 or more seconds at signalized intersections, or 30 seconds or more on minor approaches at unsignalized intersections. 3 Project-generated traffic contributes more than 10 vehicles per lane at unsignalized intersections operating at LOS F with incremental delay less than 30 seconds. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.42 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 As with 2012 Baseline conditions, in 2017 segments of Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road would operate at LOS E or F in the a.m. or p.m. peak hours (see Table III.D.12). By 2017 with project traffic, subsegments of Claratina between Oakdale Road and Roselle Avenue would operate at unacceptable LOS in the a.m. or p.m. peak hours as well. Portions of Sylvan Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Avenue would operate at LOS E or F, primarily the subsegment between Wood Sorrell Avenue and Oakdale Avenue that are assumed to be one lane in each direction. As with 2012 Baseline conditions, in 2017 the southbound segments of Oakdale Road between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue would operate at LOS F in both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. With project-generated traffic, the segment of Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road would deteriorate further, and some of the new eastbound segments of Claratina Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Road would operate at LOS F in the p.m. peak hour. The subsegment of Oakdale Road between Sylvan Avenue and Bridgewood Way would deteriorate from LOS D to LOS E in the p.m. peak hour. The portion of Roselle Avenue between Tivoli Road C and Tivoli Road D would deteriorate from LOS A to LOS F. Other subsegments of the study roadways would continue to operate at LOS E or F with project-generated traffic, but would not deteriorate substantially. Impact D.3. Buildout of the proposed project would result in significant impacts at study intersections adjacent to and near the project site in 2017. (Significant and Unavoidable) Project traffic would cause significant impacts at 20 of the 26 intersections that would operate at unacceptable levels of service in 2017: Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Floyd Avenue Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Coffee Road at Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.43 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table III.D.12: Roadway Segment Level of Service 2017 Baseline and 2017 with Project 2017 Baseline 2017 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS AM PM Impact Y/N? Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road EB 1 rural road 1.201 F 3.151 F 1 rural road 1.746 F 3.489 F 0.544 0.338 Y McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road WB 1 rural road 3.179 F 2.422 F 1 rural road 3.573 F 2.773 F 0.394 0.351 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road EB 1 rural road 0.622 B 2.129 F 1 rural road 1.290 F 2.924 F 0.668 0.796 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road WB 1 rural road 2.334 F 1.712 F 1 rural road 3.032 F 2.297 F 0.698 0.584 Y Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.463 A 1.145 F n/a n/a Y Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 B 0.711 A n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway # 1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.410 A 1.092 F n/a n/a Y RSC-1 Driveway #1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.881 D 0.711 C n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.360 A 1.038 F n/a n/a Y RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 D 0.690 B n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.337 A 0.985 E n/a n/a Y RSC-1 driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 B 0.771 A n/a n/a N Tivoli Road A to Tivoli Road B EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.301 A 0.745 C n/a n/a N Tivoli Road A to Tivoli Road B WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.665 B 0.606 B n/a n/a N Tivoli Road B to Roselle Avenue EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 unsignalized arterial 0.213 A 0.539 A n/a n/a N Tivoli Road B to Roselle Avenue WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 signalized arterial 0.684 B 0.659 B n/a n/a N Roselle Avenue Claratina Avenue to Tivoli Road C NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.271 A 0.289 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.396 A 0.371 A 0.125 0.083 N Claratina Avenue to Tivoli Road C SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.154 A 0.378 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.125 A 0.389 A -0.029 0.012 N Tivoli Road C to Tivoli Road D NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.271 A 0.289 A 2 unsignalized arterial 1.011 F 1.031 F 0.740 0.742 Y Tivoli Road C to Tivoli Road D SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.154 A 0.378 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.553 A 1.243 F 0.399 0.866 Y Tivoli Road D to Sylvan Avenue NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.335 A 0.367 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.547 A 0.542 A 0.212 0.175 N Tivoli Road D to Sylvan Avenue SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.243 A 0.441 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.319 A 0.613 B 0.077 0.172 N Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.352 A 0.633 B 2 unsignalized arterial 0.342 A 0.455 A -0.010 -0.178 N Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.562 A 0.533 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.408 A 0.475 A -0.154 -0.058 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.353 A 0.702 C 2 unsignalized arterial 0.335 A 0.571 A -0.018 -0.131 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.629 B 0.545 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.507 A 0.486 A -0.122 -0.059 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.441 A 0.755 C 2 unsignalized arterial 0.467 A 0.691 B 0.027 -0.064 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.690 B 0.567 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.614 B 0.583 A -0.076 0.016 N Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane EB 1 unsignalized arterial 0.812 D 1.597 F 1 unsignalized arterial 0.843 D 1.391 F 0.031 -0.206 N Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane WB 1 unsignalized arterial 1.453 F 1.186 F 1 unsignalized arterial 1.315 F 1.130 F -0.138 -0.056 N ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.44 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table III.D.12 (continued) 2017 Baseline 2017 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS AM PM Impact Y/N? Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road EB 1 signalized arterial 1.095 F 2.223 F 1 signalized arterial 1.144 F 1.955 F 0.049 -0.268 N Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road WB 2 signalized arterial 0.997 E 0.825 D 2 signalized arterial 0.913 E 0.791 C -0.084 -0.034 N Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way NB 1 signalized arterial 2.384 F 2.259 F 3 signalized arterial 0.812 D 0.886 D -1.572 -1.373 N Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way SB 3 signalized arterial 0.546 A 0.866 D 3 signalized arterial 0.679 B 0.900 E 0.132 0.034 Y Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E NB 1 signalized arterial 2.340 F 1.948 F 3 signalized arterial 0.798 C 0.808 D -1.542 -1.140 N Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E SB 3 signalized arterial 0.451 A 0.769 C 3 signalized arterial 0.550 A 0.803 D 0.099 0.034 N Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue NB 1 signalized arterial 2.140 F 1.881 F 3 signalized arterial 0.738 C 0.791 C -1.402 -1.091 N Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue SB 3 signalized arterial 0.389 A 0.773 C 3 signalized arterial 0.506 A 0.856 D 0.117 0.083 N Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue NB 1 signalized arterial 2.461 F 2.225 F 3 signalized arterial 0.779 C 0.821 D -1.682 -1.404 N Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue SB 3 signalized arterial 0.520 A 0.873 D 3 signalized arterial 0.627 B 0.833 D 0.108 -0.040 N Notes: n/a = not applicable, does not exist in baseline. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.45 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road The remaining 6 intersections would operate at LOS E or F but are not identified as having significant traffic impacts. These intersections—at Claus Road and Santa Fe Avenue, Coffee Road and Mable Avenue, Oakdale Road at Crawford Road, Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue, Oakdale Road and Claribel Road, and Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue—would not result in an increase in delay of five or more seconds at signalized intersections or more than 30 seconds on minor approaches at unsignalized intersections, and therefore would not meet the significance criteria identified on pp. IV.D.14 to IV.D.15. Mitigation measures are available that would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. In some cases implementation would improve the intersection to LOS D, which would meet the City of Modesto’s criteria for acceptable operations, but would not meet the County’s LOS criterion of C or better. Mitigation Measure D.3a Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue: Add second northbound and southbound left turn lanes; add separate eastbound and westbound right turn lanes. Implementation of these measures would improve LOS from F to C in the a.m. peak hour and from F to D in the p.m. peak hour. This measure was placed into service on March 23, 2006, after the transportation analysis was completed; therefore, this mitigation measure is no longer needed. Mitigation Measure D.3b Claus Road at Claribel Road: Add second southbound through lane; add second northbound left turn lane; add second eastbound right turn lane; and add second westbound through lane. The City shall create a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements. Implementation of these measures would improve LOS from F to D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.46 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The intersection is located outside the City of Modesto’s jurisdiction. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. Stanislaus County has adopted a Public Facilities Fee (PFF) program that includes improving Claus Road from Claribel Road to Terminal Avenue to six lanes, to which the project sponsors would have to contribute. Specific improvements at this intersection are not currently known. A funding mechanism must be developed for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements not covered. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. It is also not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location, which is under the jurisdiction of Stanislaus County. Therefore, the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.3c Claus Road at Floyd Avenue: Add second northbound and southbound through lanes; add second northbound left turn lane. Implementation of these measures would improve LOS from F to D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.3d Claus Road at Milnes Road: Add second northbound and southbound through lanes and signalize the intersection. The City shall establish a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the cost of infrastructure improvements. Implementation of these measures would improve LOS from F to C in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.46a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The StanCOG Policy Board included funding for a traffic signal and some intersection improvements at this location in their action on September 13, 2006. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of other improvements to Claus Road but not Milnes Road at this ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.47 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. A funding mechanism must be developed for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements not covered. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when all of the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.3e Claus Road at Plainview Road: Add southbound and northbound exclusive left-turn lanes and a second northbound and southbound through lane. Signalize the intersection. The City shall establish a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the cost of intersection improvements. Implementation of these measures would improve LOS from F to B in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction, in Stanislaus County; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to roadways within the County. It is not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location. Stanislaus County has adopted a Public Facilities Fee (PFF) program that includes improving Claus Road from Claribel Road to Terminal Avenue to six lanes. Specific improvements at this intersection are not currently known. Project developers would have to contribute to the PFF. A funding mechanism must be developed for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements not covered. The project’s fair share contribution to improvements at this intersection would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS, and the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. Therefore, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible and thus the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.3f Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue: Add second eastbound right turn lane. Implementation of this measure would improve levels of service from F to B in the a.m. peak hour and C in the p.m. peak hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.48 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.3g Coffee Road at Claratina Road: Implement Mitigation Measure D.1d, to conduct a traffic study at 75 percent buildout, to be funded by project developers, to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. As with Measure D.1d, if the approach volumes exceed the roundabout capacity, the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. Implementation of this measure would result in acceptable levels of service of LOS D or better at the intersection. Mitigation Measure D.3h Coffee Road at Claribel Avenue: Convert existing lanes to exclusive through lanes. Add second exclusive through lane in the southbound direction and second and third exclusive through lanes in the eastbound and westbound directions. Add one exclusive southbound left turn lane and two exclusive left turn lanes for the westbound, northbound and eastbound directions. Add exclusive right-turn lanes at all four approaches to the intersection. Signalize the intersection, and implement overlap phasing for the northbound right turn lane. Implementation of these measures would improve the intersection LOS from F to D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction, in Stanislaus County; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to roadways within the County. It is not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution to improvements at this intersection would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. The intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.49 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.3i Coffee Road at Sylvan Road: Add exclusive southbound, eastbound and westbound right turn lanes. These measures would improve p.m. peak hour LOS from F to D. This mitigation measure is infeasible. Implementation is not physically possible to accommodate, and would require acquisition of private property that is presently developed with occupied land uses, requiring demolition and loss of those uses at this location. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of some of these improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. The CFF does not include the exclusive southbound right turn lane. While some intersection improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, not all improvements are physically possible to accommodate. Therefore the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure D.3j McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road (Claribel Road becomes Kiernan Avenue west of McHenry Avenue): Add second left turn lanes on eastbound and westbound approaches; add third through lane on northbound and southbound approaches; and add fourth through lane on westbound approach. Implementation of these measures would improve LOS from F to D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. McHenry Avenue is State Route 108 and Kiernan Avenue west of McHenry Avenue is State Route 219; both are under Caltrans jurisdiction. The City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements on these roadways. The City has established a CFF program to cover its share of the cost of some improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The CFF program is for a grade-separated interchange. The Stanislaus County PFF program and Caltrans may have funding to improve SR 108 and 219 that may be available for this intersection. The project’s fair share contribution to the Modesto CFF would be relatively small in relation to the total cost of the mitigation measure. While some improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds are not programmed and may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.50 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.3k McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue: Add second left turn lane on all approaches; add exclusive right turn lane on northbound, southbound, and westbound approaches; change signal timing to overlapping phasing on all approaches. Implementation of these measures would improve LOS from F to D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. McHenry Avenue is State Route 108 and therefore is under Caltrans jurisdiction; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements on this roadway. The City has established a CFF program to cover its share of the cost of some improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While some improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, and Caltrans may allocate funding to improve McHenry Avenue, sufficient funds are not programmed, and may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. The intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. Therefore the mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.3l McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue: The City of Modesto will add a third eastbound through lane and a third westbound through lane. Implementation of this measure would improve levels of service from F to D in the a.m. peak hour and D in the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation Measure D.3m Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way: The project developers shall provide an exclusive eastbound right turn lane with signal overlap. Implementation of this measure would improve the level of service from F to C in the p.m. peak hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.51 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure D.3n Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue: Add third eastbound and westbound through lanes. Implement overlapping signal phasing on the northbound, westbound, and eastbound approaches. Implementation of these measures would improve LOS from E to D in the a.m. peak hour and from F to D in the p.m. peak hour. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, the mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.3o Oakdale Road at Morrill Road: Implement Measure D.1m. This measure would improve LOS from F to C in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As explained under Measure D.1m, this intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction; mitigation is, therefore, potentially infeasible, although the City of Riverbank has obtained funding for a signal at this location. Mitigation Measure D.3p Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue: The project developers shall add a third northbound through lane. The project developers shall fund actions by the City to change signal timing, implementing overlap phasing on the eastbound approach. Implementation of these measures would improve levels of service from E to C in the a.m. peak hour and from F to D in the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation Measure D.3q Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive: Implement Measure D.1p. With this measure the intersection would improve from LOS F to LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS B in the p.m. peak hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.52 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. Funding is available to improve the intersection within the next year as part of the project to install a roundabout at Roselle Avenue and Floyd Avenue, although signalization is expected to occur several years in the future. While signalization would be expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, the mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.3r Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road: Add one exclusive left turn lane on the northbound and southbound approaches and two exclusive left turn lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection. Add a second exclusive through lane on the southbound approach and second and third exclusive through lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches. Add exclusive right turn lanes on all approaches. Signalize the intersection. Implementation of these measures would result in improvements from LOS F to LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction, in Stanislaus County; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to roadways within the County. It is not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution to improvements at this intersection would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As other funding is not assured and therefore may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.3s Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C: The project developers shall implement Mitigation Measure D.1d, to fund a traffic study at 75 percent buildout to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. As with Measure D.1d, if the approach volumes exceed the roundabout capacity, ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.53 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. Implementation of this measure would result in acceptable levels of service of LOS D or better at the intersection. Mitigation Measure D.3t Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road: Add second through lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches. Add exclusive left turn lanes on all approaches. Signalize the intersection. Implementation of these measures would improve LOS from F to C in the a.m. peak hour and D in the p.m. peak hour. This intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction in Stanislaus County; the City does not have authority to design and construct improvements in the County. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, the mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Impact D.4. Buildout of the proposed project would result in significant impacts on roadway segments adjacent to and near the project site in 2017. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The roadway segment of Claratina Avenue from McHenry Avenue to Tivoli Road A would operate at unacceptable levels of service in 2017, as would Roselle Avenue between Tivoli Road C and Tivoli Road D, and Oakdale Road between Tivoli Road E and Mable Avenue. Although the segments of Sylvan Avenue from Roselle Avenue to Oakdale Road and of southbound Oakdale Road from Mable Avenue to Bridgewood Way would operate at LOS F, this would occur under 2017 baseline conditions, and the increment due to project traffic would not be sufficient to result in a significant impact. Mitigation Measure D.4 Claratina Avenue from McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road: Implement Mitigation Measure D.2a to add a second eastbound lane and a second westbound lane. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.54 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Implementation of these measures would result in an improvement to LOS D or better. Although theoretically additional lanes would also be needed on other subsegments of Claratina Avenue, and on subsegments of Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Road that were identified as experiencing unacceptable levels of service, they are not included in the list of mitigation measures because intersection operations that could create the roadway bottlenecks that are identified in the analysis do not require the additional upstream capacity in order to function at acceptable levels. Year 2025 Cumulative Traffic Conditions The year 2025 conditions in the City’s traffic model assume construction of the proposed roadways identified in the Circulation Element of the Urban Area General Plan. The travel in the 2025 traffic model includes the growth in population and employment that is presented in the General Plan. The model was adjusted to account for additional growth at the Tivoli Specific Plan site because the project proposes to change the types and densities of land uses in portions of the project site (see the discussion under “Future Baseline Intersection Volumes” on p. IV.D.16). Project-related transportation improvements are assumed to have been completed in 2017 with full buildout of the Tivoli Specific Plan. The amount of traffic generated by the proposed project is the same as that presented for the year 2017-with-project conditions. Intersection Operations Intersection levels of service and delay were calculated for all 60 study intersections in 2025. Compared to existing conditions in 2005 with 17 intersections operating at unacceptable LOS E or F, and compared to conditions analyzed for the year 2017 with 30 intersections operating at LOS E or F, in 2025 34 intersections would operate at unacceptable service levels (see Table IV.D.13). Included in the 34, the roundabout at Coffee Road and Claratina Avenue would operate at LOS F. All other roundabouts would operate at acceptable levels of service in 2025 without project-generated traffic. With project-generated traffic in 2025, five intersections would improve compared to baseline conditions with the addition of roundabouts or limitations on left turns. A total of 29 intersections would operate at LOS E or F with the project, including three newly-constructed locations that would begin to operate at unacceptable levels. The two new roundabouts on ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.55 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.D.13: 2025 Baseline and 2025 with Project Peak Hour Levels of Service 2025 Baseline No Project 2025 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Impact Y/N? 1 Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 362.1 (2514.3) F(F) 286.1 (9062.0) F(F) Roundabout 4.9 A 6.3 A N 2 Boyce Lane at Sylvan Avenue Signal 36.7 D 13.5 B Signal 45.4 D 14.6 B N 3 Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 348.5 F 453.1 F Signal 353.8 F 469.0 F Y 4 Claus Road at Claribel Road Signal 445.9 F 556.8 F Signal 456.9 F 581.2 F Y 5 Claus Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 382.4 F 530.3 F Signal 566.1 F 673.3 F Y 6 Claus Road at Milnes Road Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Y3 7 Claus Road at Plainview Road Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Y3 8 Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) N2 9 Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 509.1 F 774.5 F Signal 594.2 F 871.4 F Y 10 Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Roundabout 651.5 F 5625.8 F Roundabout 796.1 F 879.0 F Y 11 Coffee Road at Claribel Road All-way STOP 3125.4 F 3637.5 F All-way STOP 3295.4 F 3914.0 F Y 12 Coffee Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 31.6 C 39.4 D Signal 33.4 C 42.6 D N 13 Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Signal 221.5 F 124.1 F Signal 217.3 F 128.4 F N2 14 Coffee Road at Rumble Road Signal 30.7 C 35.0 C Signal 30.3 C 35.7 D N 15 Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 49.2 D 106.9 F Signal 51.0 D 112.8 F Y 16 Coffee Road at Sylvan Meadows Drive Signal 12.1 B 28.8 C Signal 12.9 B 30.1 C N 17 Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 3.9 A 4.2 A Roundabout 4.0 A 6.1 A N 18 Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 1.8 (104.5) A(F) 13.8 (1275.5) B(F) Unsignalized 0.1 (16.7) A(C) 0.1 (15.0) A(B) N 19 McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road Signal 920.4 F 875.9 F Signal 942.7 F 889.6 F Y 20 McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue Signal 502.3 F 589.6 F Signal 560.1 F 626.3 F Y 21 McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Signal 155.4 F 229.8 F Signal 169.4 F 250.3 F Y 22 McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 146.3 (2138.0) F(F) 263.8 (8014.7) F(F) Roundabout 3.7 A 4.8 A N 23 Millbrook Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 3.4 A 3.7 A Roundabout 4.1 A 4.2 A N 24 NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 1.7 A 4.6 A N 25 Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Unsignalized 2069.7 (>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Signal 59.3 E 214.4 F Y 26 Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 105.7 F 164.3 F Signal 126.8 F 170.7 F Y 27 Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Signal 143.4 F 177.3 F Y 28 Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Signal 768.6 F 879.1 F Signal 759.6 F 792.9 F N2 29 Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Signal 146.5 F 272.2 F Signal 117.4 F 238.7 F N2 30 Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 136.0 F 224.3 F Signal 76.4 E 188.4 F N2 31 Oakdale Road at Lancey Drive Signal 8.7 A 17.0 B Signal 8.5 A 23.0 C N 32 Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Signal 304.3 F 370.3 F Signal 10.9 B 45.6 D N 33 Oakdale Road at Manor Oak Drive Signal 14.1 B 8.3 A Signal 13.5 B 7.4 A N 34 Oakdale Road at Merle Avenue Signal 16.9 B 20.3 C Signal 16.6 B 21.1 C N ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.56 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 2025 Baseline No Project 2025 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Control Delay1 LOS Delay1 LOS Impact Y/N? 35 Oakdale Road at Morrill Road All-way STOP 172.1 F 337.4 F All-way STOP 188.0 F 467.3 F Y 36 Oakdale Road at Private Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0 (0.0) A(A) 0.0 (0.0) A(A) N 37 Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 103.7 F 141.1 F Signal 107.5 F 188.5 F Y 38 Oakdale Road at Tivoli E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0 (0.0) A(A) 0.0 (0.0) A(A) N 39 Oakdale Road RSC-1 Driveway 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0 (0.0) A(A) 0.0 (0.0) A(A) N 40 Roselle Avenue and MHDR-2 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 (10.7) A(B) 0.2 (17.1) A(C) N 41 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Unsignalized 205.8 (1108.4) F(F) 189.6 (3407.4) F(F) Unsignalized 224.4 (1269.2) F(F) 200.0 (3901.1) F(F) Y3 42 Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 143.0 F 174.2 F Signal 135.1 F 174.4 F N2 43 Roselle Avenue at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 2.3 A 2.9 A N 44 Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 2018.4 F 2523.0 F All-way STOP 2099.4 F 2438.4 F Y 45 Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue Roundabout 2.9 A 4.5 A Roundabout 3.0 A 5.0 A N 46 Roselle Avenue at Hillglen Avenue Roundabout 4.2 A 3.9 A Roundabout 4.3 A 4.4 A N 47 Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive Roundabout 3.5 A 3.9 A Roundabout 3.8 A 4.4 A N 48 Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue Signal 59.0 E 56.0 E Signal 62.5 E 60.2 E N2 49 Roselle Avenue at NC-1 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.1 (9.9) A(A) 0.8 (20.0) A(C) N 50 Roselle Avenue at Plainview Road Unsignalized 4.7 ( 22.4) A(C) 22.4 ( 79.1) C(F) Unsignalized 3.2 (19.5) A(C) 6.3 (26.5) A(D) N 51 Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 5.6 A 17.9 C Roundabout 8.3 A 21.6 C N 52 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 32.7 D 432.3 F Y 53 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 14.8 B 59.4 F Y 54 RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 (10.6) A(B) 1.7 (31.9) A(D) N 55 Private Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 19.0 B 32.1 C N 56 RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 (10.1) A(B) 0.8 (20.3) A(C) N 57 Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 1640.4 F 2224.6 F All-way STOP 1551.7 F 2210.1 F Y3 58 Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 33.1 C 31.5 C N 59 Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 15.3 B 8.9 A N 60 Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 103.1 (2243.4) F(F) 145.4 (5105.6) F(F) Roundabout 3.6 A 5.4 A N Note: n/a = not applicable xx (xx) – Overall (Worst Case) delay and levels of service for unsignalized intersections. 1 Delay in seconds per vehicle. Delay shown as >9999 indicates overflow delay; calculations using the HCM 2000 methodology are not capable of quantifying delay. Theoretically, estimated delay could exceed 9999 seconds. 2 Project-generated traffic would not cause critical delay to increase by more than 5 seconds at signalized intersections, or more than 30 seconds at minor approaches to unsignalized intersections. 3 Project-generated traffic would contribute more than 10 vehicles per lane at unsignalized intersections operating at LOS F with incremental delays of less than 30 seconds. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.57 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Roselle Avenue, at Tivoli Road C and Tivoli Road D are two of these three new intersections; both would operate at LOS F in the p.m. peak hour. Roadway Segment Operations The improvements assumed for the project in 2017 (see p. IV.D.21) would be in place in 2025 and are included in the cumulative analysis. As with 2012 and 2017 baseline conditions, segments of Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road would operate at LOS E or F. Portions of Sylvan Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Avenue would operate at LOS E or F. Roselle Avenue would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS A in 2025 baseline conditions. With project-generated traffic, the segment of Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road would continue to operate at LOS F, with further deterioration in volume-to- capacity ratios, and subsegments of Claratina Avenue between Oakdale Road and Roselle Avenue would operate at LOS E or F in the p.m. peak hour (see Table IV.D.14). Oakdale Road would operate at LOS F in the p.m. peak hour between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue. The northbound segments would also operate at LOS F in the a.m. peak hour. Although parts of Sylvan Avenue would operate at unacceptable levels of service, this would be true for the 2025 baseline and the project increment of traffic would not be substantial. Impact D.5. The project would contribute to significant impacts at study intersections adjacent to and near the project site in 2025. (Significant and Unavoidable) Project-generated traffic would cause significant impacts at 22 of the 29 intersections that would operate at unacceptable levels of service with the project in 2025: Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Floyd Avenue Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Coffee Road at Claribel Road Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.58 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.D.14: Roadway Segment Levels of Service 2025 Baseline and 2025 with Project 2025 Baseline 2025 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS AM PM Impact Y/N? Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road EB 1 rural road 1.300 F 4.419 F 1 rural road 1.844 F 4.757 F 0.544 0.338 Y McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road WB 1 rural road 4.612 F 2.978 F 1 rural road 5.007 F 3.329 F 0.394 0.351 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road EB 1 rural road 1.037 F 3.548 F 1 rural road 1.704 F 4.343 F 0.668 0.796 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road WB 1 rural road 3.891 F 2.854 F 1 rural road 4.589 F 3.439 F 0.698 0.584 Y Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.463 A 1.145 F n/a n/a Y Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 B 0.711 A n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway # 1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.410 A 1.092 F n/a n/a Y RSC-1 Driveway #1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.881 D 0.711 C n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.360 A 1.038 F n/a n/a Y RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 D 0.690 B n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.337 A 0.985 E n/a n/a Y RSC-1 driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 B 0.690 A n/a n/a N Tivoli Road A to Tivoli Road B EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.301 A 0.745 C n/a n/a N Tivoli Road A to Tivoli Road B WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.665 B 0.606 B n/a n/a N Tivoli Road B to Roselle Avenue EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 unsignalized arterial 0.213 A 0.539 A n/a n/a N Tivoli Road B to Roselle Avenue WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.684 B 0.659 B n/a n/a N Roselle Avenue Claratina Avenue to Tivoli Road C NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.452 A 0.471 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.396 A 0.371 A -0.056 -0.100 N Claratina Avenue to Tivoli Road C SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.256 A 0.300 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.125 A 0.389 A -0.131 0.089 N Tivoli Road C to Tivoli Road D NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.452 A 0.471 A 2 unsignalized arterial 1.192 F 1.224 F 0.740 0.753 Y Tivoli Road C to Tivoli Road D SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.256 A 0.300 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.655 B 1.495 F 0.399 1.195 Y Tivoli Road D to Sylvan Avenue NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.470 A 0.481 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.682 B 0.651 B 0.212 0.171 N Tivoli Road D to Sylvan Avenue SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.299 A 0.627 B 2 unsignalized arterial 0.375 A 0.799 C 0.077 0.172 N Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.461 A 0.830 D 2 unsignalized arterial 0.451 A 0.648 B -0.010 -0.182 N Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.738 C 0.717 C 2 unsignalized arterial 0.584 A 0.659 B -0.154 -0.058 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.454 A 0.889 D 2 unsignalized arterial 0.436 A 0.758 C -0.018 -0.131 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.793 C 0.728 C 2 unsignalized arterial 0.671 B 0.670 B -0.122 -0.059 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.539 A 0.934 E 2 unsignalized arterial 0.565 A 0.870 D 0.027 -0.064 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.834 D 0.748 C 2 unsignalized arterial 0.759 C 0.763 C -0.076 0.016 N Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane EB 1 unsignalized arterial 0.940 E 1.975 F 1 unsignalized arterial 0.971 E 1.769 F 0.031 -0.206 N Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane WB 1 unsignalized arterial 1.760 F 1.544 F 1 unsignalized arterial 1.622 F 1.488 F -0.138 -0.056 N ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.59 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 2025 Baseline 2025 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS AM PM Impact Y/N? Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road EB 1 signalized arterial 1.207 F 2.679 F 1 signalized arterial 1.256 F 2.411 F 0.049 -0.268 N Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road WB 2 signalized arterial 1.197 F 1.025 F 2 signalized arterial 1.113 F 0.991 E -0.084 -0.034 N Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way NB 1 signalized arterial 3.333 F 3.031 F 3 signalized arterial 1.128 F 1.143 F -2.205 -1.888 N Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way SB 3 signalized arterial 0.644 B 1.203 F 3 signalized arterial 0.777 C 1.237 F 0.132 0.034 N Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E NB 1 signalized arterial 3.549 F 2.817 F 3 signalized arterial 1.201 F 1.098 F -2.348 -1.720 N Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E SB 3 signalized arterial 0.638 B 1.137 F 3 signalized arterial 0.737 C 1.172 F 0.099 0.034 N Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue NB 1 signalized arterial 3.567 F 3.135 F 3 signalized arterial 1.213 F 1.208 F -2.353 -1.926 N Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue SB 3 signalized arterial 0.648 B 1.288 F 3 signalized arterial 0.765 C 1.371 F 0.117 0.083 Y Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue NB 1 signalized arterial 3.624 F 3.163 F 3 signalized arterial 1.167 F 1.133 F -2.457 -2.029 N Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue SB 3 signalized arterial 0.657 B 1.300 F 3 signalized arterial 0.764 C 1.260 F 0.108 -0.040 N n/a = not applicable does not exist in baseline. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.60 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road and Bridgewood Way Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Claratina Road Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road D Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road The remaining 7 intersections that would operate at LOS E or F are not identified as having significant traffic impacts either because project-generated traffic would not result in an increase in delay of five seconds or more at a signalized intersection, or project-generated traffic would not cause delays of 30 seconds or more on minor approaches at unsignalized intersections operating at LOS F or contribute more than 10 vehicles per lane at these unsignalized intersections. Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue Mitigation measures are available that would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels, for most, but not all of the intersections. In some cases mitigation would require changing a roundabout to a signalized intersection. Implementation of the feasible mitigation measures would result in improvements to at least LOS D; intersections that do not improve to LOS C or better would not meet Stanislaus County’s criterion of LOS C. Mitigation Measure D.5a Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue: Add a second eastbound and third westbound through lane and a second southbound right turn lane. (A second westbound left turn lane was placed into service on March 23, 2006, after the transportation analysis was completed.) ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.61 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Implementation of this measure would result in LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The CFF program covers a grade- separated interchange at this location. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While some improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds are not programmed and may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, the mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.5.b Claus Road at Claribel Road: Add a second left turn lane on the northbound, eastbound, and westbound approaches; add a third through lane on the southbound and westbound approaches. Provide a free right turn lane on the eastbound approach; provide a second southbound right turn lane. The City shall establish a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements. Implementation of these measures would result in LOS D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersection is located outside the City of Modesto’s jurisdiction. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. Stanislaus County has adopted a Public Facility Fee (PFF) program that includes improving Claus Road from Claribel Road to Terminal Avenue to six lanes. Specific improvements at this intersection are not currently known. Project developers would be required to contribute to the PFF. A funding mechanism must be developed by the City for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements not covered. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. It is also not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location, which is under the jurisdiction of Stanislaus County. Therefore, the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.61a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure D.5c Claus Road at Floyd Avenue: Add second exclusive left turn lanes on all approaches; add second eastbound through lane and second and third northbound, southbound and westbound through lanes; add second eastbound and westbound right turn lanes; operate all right turns with overlap signal phasing. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.62 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Implementation of these measures would result in LOS D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. This intersection is proposed to be a grade-separated single point urban interchange facility in the General Plan in the future. The proposed mitigation measure would not be physically feasible. Floyd Avenue is included in the General Plan as a four-lane major collector street, and residential uses are under construction or approved on both sides of this street; the improvements included in the mitigation measure would require removing some of the recently approved residential buildings to provide sufficient width. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.5d Claus Road at Milnes Road: Add two exclusive southbound through lanes and a second and third exclusive southbound lanes. Signalize the intersection. The City shall establish a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements. Implementation of these measures would result in improvements from LOS F to LOS C in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The StanCOG Policy Board included funding for a traffic signal at this location in their action on September 13, 2006. The City CFF program does not cover the cost of other improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. A funding mechanism must be developed for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements not covered. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, the mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.5e Claus Road at Plainview Road: Add exclusive left turn lanes at all approaches to the intersection. Add second and third exclusive through lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches. Signalize the intersection. The City shall establish a funding mechanism for project developers to pay a fair share of the improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.63 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Implementation of these measures would improve service levels from LOS F to LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. The intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction, in Stanislaus County; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to roadways within the County. It is not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location. Stanislaus County has adopted a Public Facility Fee (PFF) program that includes improving Claus Road from Claribel Road to Terminal Avenue to six lanes. Specific improvements at this intersection are not currently known. Project developers would have to contribute to the PFF. A funding mechanism must be developed for project developers to pay a fair share of the intersection improvements not covered. The project’s fair share contribution to improvements at this intersection would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore, the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.5f Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue: Add a third southbound through and a separate southbound right turn lane. Add a second eastbound left turn lane and provide a free eastbound right turn lane. Implementation of this measure would result in LOS C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. Implementation would require acquisition of property that is presently developed with occupied land uses, requiring demolition and loss of those uses at this location. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of some improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The CFF does not include the third southbound through lane, and the acquisition of developed property was not assumed in the City’s cost estimates for the improvements. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.63a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure D.5g Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue: Implement Mitigation Measure D.1d, to conduct a traffic study, at the project developers’ expense at 75 percent buildout to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. As with Measure D.1d, if the approach volumes exceed the ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.64 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 roundabout capacity, the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. Implementation of this measure would result in acceptable levels of service of LOS D or better at the intersection. Mitigation Measure D.5h Coffee Road at Claribel Avenue: Add three exclusive left turn lanes on the northbound approach and two exclusive left turn lanes at the other three approaches. Add second northbound and southbound through lanes and 3 additional through lanes at the eastbound and westbound approaches. Add exclusive right turn lanes on all approaches. Signalize the intersection. Implementation of these measures would result in LOS D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction, in Stanislaus County; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to roadways within the County. It is not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution to improvements at this intersection would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.5i Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue: Add exclusive southbound, eastbound, and westbound right turn lanes. Implementation of this measure would result in LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. This mitigation measure is infeasible. Implementation would require acquisition of property that is presently developed with occupied land uses, requiring demolition and loss of those uses at this location. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of some improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The CFF does not include the exclusive southbound right-turn lane, and the acquisition of developed property was not assumed in the City’s cost estimates for intersection improvements. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While some improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, not all improvements are physically feasible. Therefore the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.65 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure D.5j McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road (Claribel Road becomes Kiernan Avenue west of McHenry Avenue): Require a Grade-Separated Interchange or Split Diamond. This measure is infeasible because the cost of implementation would be substantial, and the project’s contribution to traffic growth at this location 2.5 miles from the project site would not be large enough to support a requirement that project sponsors contribute the full cost of construction. McHenry Avenue is State Route 108 and Kiernan Avenue west of McHenry Avenue is State Route 219; therefore, portions of this intersection are under Caltrans jurisdiction. The City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to these roadways. The City has established a CFF program to provide its share of the costs of improving this intersection; the CFF program provides for construction of a grade separation at this location. The Stanislaus County PFF and Caltrans may have funding to improve portions of SR 108 and 219 that may be available for this intersection. However, the project’s fair share of the cost, in combination with County and State funding plus contributions from other expected development that would result in new traffic at this intersection, may not be sufficient to acquire the necessary private property and construct the necessary improvements. Therefore, funding is not assured, and the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. This mitigation measure is identified as potentially infeasible, and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure D.5k McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue: Require a Grade-Separated Interchange or Spilt Diamond. McHenry Avenue is State Route 108 and therefore is under Caltrans jurisdiction. The City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to McHenry Avenue. In addition, this measure is infeasible because the cost of implementation would be substantial, and the project’s contribution to traffic growth at this location 2 miles from the project site would not be large enough to support a requirement that project sponsors contribute the full cost of construction. The City has established a CFF program to provide its share of the costs of improving this intersection; the CFF program includes grade separation at this location. The State may have funding available to improve a portion of this intersection. However, the project’s fair share of the cost, in combination with State funding and contributions from other expected development that would result in new traffic at this intersection, may not be sufficient to acquire the necessary private property and construct the necessary improvements. Therefore, funding is not assured, and the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. This mitigation measure is identified as potentially infeasible, and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.66 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure D.5l McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue: Add a fourth through lane on eastbound and westbound approaches; provide right turn lanes on northbound and westbound approaches. Implementation of these measures would result in LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D in the p.m. peak hour. This mitigation measure is infeasible. McHenry Avenue is State Route 108 and therefore is under Caltrans jurisdiction; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements on this roadway. The City has established a CFF program to cover its share of the cost of some improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The CFF program does not include a fourth through lane in the east-west direction. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While some improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds are not programmed and may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. In addition, implementation of all of the features of this measure would require substantial acquisition of private property, including a video store, two banks, and a gas station, significantly impacting existing development at the intersection. The acquisition of developed property was not assumed in the City’s cost estimates for intersection improvements. Therefore the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure D.5m Oakdale Avenue at Bridgewood Way: The project developers shall provide an exclusive eastbound right turn lane with signal overlap. Implementation of this measure would improve levels of service from E to C in the a.m. peak hour and LOS F to D in the p.m. peak hour. Mitigation Measure D.5n Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue: Provide third and fourth northbound lanes; provide a fourth southbound through lane; provide a separate southbound right turn lane. Implementation of these measures would result in LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.66a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 This mitigation measure is infeasible. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of some improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The CFF program does not include the fourth northbound lane and the fourth southbound lane. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While some improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds are not ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.67 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 programmed and may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. In addition, implementation of all of the features of this measure would require substantial acquisition of private property, significantly impacting existing development at the intersection including a restaurant, bank and electrical substation. The acquisition of developed property was not assumed in the City’s cost estimates for intersection improvements. Therefore the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure D.5o Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue: The project developers shall add a second southbound left turn lane and second right turn lanes in the southbound and eastbound directions. Add fourth northbound and westbound, and third and fourth southbound through lanes. Add a third northbound left turn lane. Implementation of these measures would result in LOS C during the a.m. peak hour and LOS D during the p.m. peak hour. This mitigation measure is infeasible. The fourth through lanes and third northbound left turn lane, and second right turn lanes in the southbound and eastbound directions are infeasible at this location, because it would require up to 15 lanes, including up to four through lanes, three left turn lanes, and two right turn lanes in each direction. Intersections with this number of lanes do not operate efficiently and would be wider than major freeways. The number of lanes would exceed the City of Modesto standards for local arterials. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure D.5p Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue: The project developers shall add third eastbound and westbound through lanes. The project developers shall add a separate right turn lane on northbound and southbound approaches and provide funding support for the City to implement overlap signal phasing on eastbound right turn lanes. Add fourth northbound and southbound through lanes. Implementation of these measures would result in LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This mitigation measure is potentially infeasible. The City has established a Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) program to cover the cost of some of these improvements, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The CFF does not include the fourth northbound and southbound through lanes at this location, because it is not physically feasible to accommodate them. The inclusion of these improvements would require substantial acquisition of private ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.67a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 property and removal of existing commercial buildings and loss of these existing land uses at this intersection. The acquisition of developed property was not assumed in the City’s cost estimates for intersection improvements. The total number of lanes would exceed the City of Modesto standards for local arterials and would not operate efficiently. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.68 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure D.5q Oakdale Road at Morrill Road: Add exclusive left- and right-turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches. Add a second exclusive southbound through lane. Signalize the intersection. Implementation of this measure would result in LOS D during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. As explained under Measure D.1m, this intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction; mitigation is, therefore, potentially infeasible, although the City of Riverbank has obtained funding for a signal at this location. Mitigation Measure D.5r Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive: Implement mitigation measure D.1p. Implementation of this measure in 2025 would result in LOS C in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements to this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. Funding is available to improve the intersection within the next year as part of the project to install a roundabout at Roselle Avenue and Floyd Avenue, although signalization is expected to occur several years in the future. While signalization would be expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. Therefore the intersection may operate poorly for a substantial period of time. As a result, this mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.5s Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road: Add exclusive left turn lanes to the northbound and southbound approaches, and add two exclusive left turn lanes to the eastbound and westbound approaches to the intersection. Add one additional exclusive through lane to the northbound and southbound approaches and three additional exclusive through lanes to the eastbound and westbound approaches. Add exclusive right turn lanes to all approaches with overlap signal phasing, and signalize the intersection. Implementation of these measures would improve LOS from F to D in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.69 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction, in Stanislaus County; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to roadways within the County. It is not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements at this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution to improvements at this intersection would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. As a result, the mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and the impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Mitigation Measure D.5t Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C: At 75 percent build-out, the City shall conduct a traffic study, funded by project developers, to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. As with Measure D.1d, if the approach volumes exceed the roundabout capacity, the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. Implementation of this measure would result in acceptable levels of service of LOS D or better at the intersection. Mitigation Measure D.5u Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road D: At 75 percent build-out, the City shall conduct a traffic study, funded by the project developers, to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. As with Measure D.1d, if the approach volumes exceed the roundabout capacity, the project developers shall either add an additional lane to the roundabout or signalize the intersection. Implementation of this measure would result in acceptable levels of service of LOS D or better at the intersection. Mitigation Measure D.5v Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road: Add exclusive left-turn lanes on all approaches to the intersection. Add two additional through lanes on the eastbound and westbound approaches. Signalize the intersection. With these measures the intersection service levels would improve from LOS F to LOS B in the a.m. peak hour and LOS C in the p.m. peak hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation D. Transportation and Circulation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.D.70 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The intersection is outside the City’s jurisdiction, in Stanislaus County; the City does not have the authority to design and construct improvements to roadways within the County. It is not known whether the City or the developers would be allowed to construct improvements at this location. The City has established a CFF program to cover the cost of improvements at this intersection, to which the project developers would be required to contribute. The project’s fair share contribution to improvements at this intersection would be relatively small in relation to the total cost. While improvements are expected to occur as the City builds out, sufficient funds may not be available when the improvements are needed to maintain an acceptable LOS. As a result, the mitigation measure is being treated as potentially infeasible, and this impact is identified as significant and unavoidable during this period. Impact D.6. Buildout of the proposed project, in combination with other cumulative growth in the Modesto General Plan area, would result in significant impacts on roadway segments adjacent to and near the project site in 2025. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Traffic generated by development of the Tivoli Specific Plan area would result in significant impacts on the segment of Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Roselle Avenue. Significant deterioration to LOS F would also occur on some subsegments of Roselle Avenue, resulting in a significant impact on Roselle Avenue between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue. Similarly, some subsegments of Oakdale Road would operate at LOS F, resulting in a significant impact on Oakdale between Sylvan Avenue and Claratina Avenue. Although some segments of Sylvan Avenue from Roselle Avenue to Oakdale Road would operate at LOS F in 2025, they would do so under 2025 baseline conditions as well, and the increment due to project traffic would not be a substantial contribution to significant cumulative impacts for the project to be identified as significant. Mitigation Measure D.6 The project developers shall add a second eastbound and westbound lane on Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road. Implementation of this measure would result in two lanes in each direction on this segment of Claratina Avenue and the roadway would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better. Although theoretically additional lanes would also be needed on Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Road, additional lanes are not recommended because the intersection operations that cause the bottlenecks along the roadways do not require additional through-lane capacity from a widened roadway segment to improve their operations and reduce the bottleneck. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 E. AIR QUALITY This section describes the existing air quality conditions in the Modesto area and evaluates the potential impacts on air quality that would result from construction and operation of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan. This section discusses the project’s potential to cause or contribute to violations of state and federal ambient air quality standards, and to result in exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminants or nuisance odors. Further discussion of air quality impacts is presented in the near-term and cumulative wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING CLIMATE AND METEOROLOGY The climate of the San Joaquin Valley is generally controlled by a semi-permanent subtropical high-pressure system located in the northern Pacific Ocean. In the summer, this high-pressure system provides clear skies, high temperatures, and low humidity. Very little precipitation occurs during the summer months because storms are blocked by the high-pressure system. Beginning in the fall and continuing through the winter, the high-pressure system weakens and moves south, allowing storms to move through the area. Temperature, winds, and rainfall are more variable during the winter months. Winter weather patterns include periods of stormy weather with rain and gusty winds, clear weather that can occur after a storm, or persistent fog. The predominant annual wind direction in the project area is from the north through west- northwest. These winds mainly occur through the spring, summer, and fall. In the winter, the winds tend to be either from the northwest or from the southeast depending on storm flow. Persistent fog forms due to low wind speeds and stable thermal conditions during the winter or nighttime. Higher winds during daylight hours and during the spring, summer, and fall allow region-wide transport of pollutants throughout the valley. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Regulated Pollutants National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are standards that define the upper limits for ambient airborne concentrations of pollutants. The standards are designed to protect all aspects of the public health and welfare, with a reasonable margin of safety. At the national level, the federal Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to establish NAAQS and designate geographic areas that are either attaining or violating the standards. In California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and local air quality management districts are ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 responsible for air quality management and developing regulations. CARB establishes CAAQS and designates the attainment status of each area in the state. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District) coordinates the efforts to comply with these standards. The NAAQS and CAAQS are established for “criteria pollutants.” These are ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead. Ozone is an example of a secondary pollutant that is not emitted directly from a source an automobile tailpipe). It is formed in the atmosphere by chemical and photochemical reactions. Reactive organic gases (ROG), including volatile organic compounds (VOC), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) are monitored and regulated because they are precursors to ozone formation. Table IV.E.1 identifies the ambient national and state air quality standards for these pollutants. Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a category of air pollutants regulated separately from criteria pollutants. The TACs are suspected or known to cause cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, or death. There are no established ambient air quality standards for TACs. Instead, they are managed on a case-by-case basis depending on the quantity and type of emissions and proximity to potential receptors. Their effects tend to be localized and directly attributable to certain sources. Air Quality Planning and Attainment CARB is responsible for oversight of air quality management in the state. CARB’s responsibilities include establishing emissions standards and regulations for certain mobile sources autos, light-duty trucks) and overseeing the efforts of local air quality management districts. The District is responsible for demonstrating that attainment of the ambient air quality standards is either achieved or will be achieved through proper regional planning in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The District directly regulates stationary emission sources through its permit authority and indirectly manages emissions from mobile sources through coordination with regional municipalities and transportation planning agencies. Because the SJVAB has ongoing violations of the NAAQS and CAAQS for ozone and PM10, the region is designated as a nonattainment area for these criteria pollutants. These pollutants are therefore the most relevant to air quality planning and regulation in the SJVAB. The District manages these pollutants through a long-term attainment planning process that forecasts emissions and future concentrations depending on changes in source activity, regulatory programs, and meteorological conditions. The air quality plans for demonstrating attainment (one each for ozone and PM10) are evolving documents that are updated approximately every three years to reflect the changing population, economic, land use, and transportation conditions in the ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.E.1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Violation Criteria Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard National Standard State National 1-hour 0.09 ppm – If exceeded If exceeded on more than 3 days in 3 years Ozone 8-hour 0.070 ppm* 0.08 ppm If exceeded If the 4th highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is exceeded 24-hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3 If exceeded If expected number of days with average 24-hr concentration is over one Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Annual mean 20 μg/m3 50 μg/m3 If exceeded If exceeded 24-hour — 65 μg/m3 If exceeded If 98% of average 24-hour daily concentration, averaged over 3 years, is exceeded Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Annual mean 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3 If exceeded If exceeded 1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm If exceeded Not to be exceeded more than one day a year Carbon monoxide (CO) 8-hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm If exceeded Not to be exceeded more than one day a year 1-hour 0.25 ppm – If equaled or exceeded NA Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Annual mean – 0.053 ppm NA Not to be exceeded more than one day a year 30-day average 1.5 μg/m3 – If equaled or exceeded NA Lead Calendar quarter – 1.5 μg/m3 If equaled or exceeded NA 1-hour 0.25 ppm – If equaled or exceeded NA Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 24-hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm If equaled or exceeded Not to be exceeded more than one day a year Annual mean – 0.03 ppm NA Not to be exceeded more than one day a year Notes: ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; = no standard; NA = not applicable. * This concentration was approved by the Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005 and is expected to become effective in early 2006. The ARB has identified lead as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. Source: CARB Ambient Air Quality Standards Table, November 29, 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 San Joaquin Valley. The local transportation planning agencies (in this area, Stanislaus Council of Governments ([StanCOG]) and CARB provide the information needed to predict future on- road mobile source emissions. Programs for motor vehicle inspection and maintenance (smog check), fuel reformulation, encouraging use of transit, and stringent control of stationary sources are all triggered by the nonattainment status of the area. If violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region persist beyond the attainment dates predicted by District plans, federal transportation funds can be withheld, adversely affecting future transportation projects in the region. The region needs to meet the federal 1-hour ozone standard by 2010, the 8-hour ozone standard before 2013, and the PM10 standards by 2010. All areas of the state are currently designated as attainment for the state lead standard, which can be attributed primarily to phasing out the lead in gasoline. The U.S. EPA does not designate areas for the national lead standard.1 Ozone Planning Based on the 1-hour ozone CAAQS, the SJVAB is classified by CARB as severe nonattainment for ozone. Because of this designation, the District must apply all feasible measures to reduce emissions. In 1991, the District prepared the Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP) in compliance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act. The California Health and Safety Code requires that a report be prepared every three years that summarizes the progress made by the District in meeting the schedules for developing, adopting, and implementing the air pollution control measures contained in the District’s plan. In October 1999, CARB conditionally approved the District’s 1997 Triennial Update Report, subject to two requirements: 1) that the District adopt 8 specific measures no later than the end of 2000, and 2) that the District prioritize 18 additional identified measures and adopt at least 4 per year during the 2001-2003 and 2004- 2006 planning cycles. On April 16, 2004, the U.S. EPA issued a final rule classifying the SJVAB as an extreme nonattainment area for 1-hour ozone. The CARB submitted the 2004 Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan to U.S. EPA on November 15, 2004. This plan, which addressed 1-hour ozone, is currently being reviewed by the U.S. EPA. However, effective June 15, 2005, the U.S. EPA revoked in full the federal 1-hour ozone ambient air quality standard, including associated designations and classifications, in all areas except 14 early action compact areas that do not include the SJVAB. On April 15, 2004, U.S. EPA designated 15 areas in California, including the SJVAB, that violate the federal 8-hour ozone standard. Each nonattainment area’s classification (marginal, moderate, serious, or severe) and attainment deadline are based on the severity of its ozone problem. The SJVAB was designated a serious nonattainment area. The SJVAB’s attainment deadline for the 8-hour NAAQS is 2013. 1 California Air Resources Board, The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2005 Edition, http://www.arb.ca.gov/Aqd/almanac/almanac.htm ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 In coordination with CARB and other north/central California air districts, preliminary work has begun on developing the 8-hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan for the District. A State Implementation Plan (SIP) demonstrating attainment of the new federal ozone standard must be adopted by the local air districts and CARB and submitted to the U.S. EPA by June 15, 2007. CARB, air districts, and other key stakeholders are coordinating development of the SIP through the Northern California 8-Hour Ozone SIP Working Group. The Working Group provides a forum for sharing technical information and for ensuring that each area's SIP is consistent with attainment throughout the region. Particulate Matter Planning On February 16, 2006, the District adopted the 2006 PM10 Plan. The 2006 PM10 Plan is a continuation of the 2003 PM10 Plan with 2005 amendments. The 2006 PM10 Plan identifies aggressive steps that the District must implement to achieve attainment with the federal standards. The control strategies include more stringent control of agricultural dust, road dust, and construction dust. The 2006 PM10 Plan also updates emission inventories and includes an evaluation of the modeling from California Regional Particulate Air Quality Study (CRPAQS) with the latest technical information and monitoring data. The 2006 PM10 Plan meets all of the following requirements for areas classified as serious nonattainment under the CAA: Demonstrate attainment at earliest practicable date; Implement Best Available Control Measures/Technology (BACM/BACT) for all significant sources of PM10 or PM10 precursors; Provide annual reductions of at least five percent of PM10 or PM10 precursor emissions based on the most recent inventory until attainment; Provide quantitative milestones for reasonable further progress; Evaluate whether most recent milestone was met; and Adopt contingency measures to assure that emission reductions are in place that can be implemented if a milestone is not achieved on schedule. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is also a pollutant of concern in the SJVAB. The NAAQS for PM2.5 are being implemented by the U.S. EPA. The U.S. EPA performs ambient monitoring to determine the attainment status of the region. Monitoring will likely reveal violations of the PM2.5 NAAQS, which will trigger a separate long-range planning process for the District to identify and manage sources of this pollutant and its precursor pollutants. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Carbon Monoxide Planning On April 26, 1996, CARB approved the “Carbon Monoxide Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for Ten Federal Planning Areas” as part of the SIP for carbon monoxide; one of the planning areas was the Modesto Urbanized Area. Improvements in CO conditions were achieved due to improvements in motor vehicles and the use of reformulated fuels. The U.S. EPA approved this revision on June 1, 1998 and redesignated the ten areas as attainment. On October 22, 1998, CARB revised the SIP to incorporate the effects of the recent regulatory action to remove the wintertime oxygen requirement for gasoline in certain areas. On July 22, 2004, CARB approved an update to the SIP that shows how the ten areas will maintain the standard through 2018, revises emission estimates, and establishes new on-road motor vehicle emission budgets for transportation conformity purposes. The attainment status for each of the criteria pollutants, including CO, is summarized in Table IV.E.2. Table IV.E.2: Ambient Air Quality Attainment Status for San Joaquin Valley Pollutant State-Level Attainment Status Federal-Level Attainment Status Ozone (1-hour) Nonattainment (Severe) – Ozone (8-hour) – Nonattainment (Serious) Inhalable Particulates (PM10) Nonattainment Nonattainment (Serious) Fine Particulates (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment Note: = not applicable. Source: CARB, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, updated February 3, 2006. TACs TACs are managed through a combination of source identification, risk characterization, control requirements, and avoidance of land use conflicts. All stationary sources of TACs are subject to the District permitting requirements, which include an evaluation of potential TAC emissions and risks to nearby receptors. Stationary sources are screened for their potential to cause health risks using a facility prioritization score. The District does not require detailed assessments of facilities with prioritization scores below 1 because their emissions would not be likely to result in potential health risks. For new sensitive land uses (including residential areas and schools), it is the responsibility of the city or county to identify whether the new land uses would be located near existing sources of TACs. Management of the public’s exposure to odors is also generally accomplished by avoiding land use conflicts with appropriate distance controls. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 In 1998, CARB identified diesel engine particulate matter as a TAC. Mobile sources, such as trucks, buses, automobiles, trains, ships, and farm equipment, are the largest source of diesel emissions. CARB estimates that 70 percent of the known statewide cancer risk from outdoor air toxics is attributable to diesel particulate matter.2 Approximately 24 percent is attributed to on- road diesel-fueled vehicles.3 CARB recommends avoiding siting new sensitive land uses within 500 feet of freeways with 100,000 vehicles per day.4 Particulates from diesel exhaust are managed through vehicle emission control programs implemented on a state and federal level with the cooperation of fuel suppliers and vehicle and engine manufacturers. CARB has implemented a Diesel Risk Reduction Plan to reduce diesel particulate matter emissions through cleaner fuels, such as ultra-low sulfur diesel, new diesel tailpipe regulations, and regulations governing operations such as idling restrictions.5 Applicable Air Quality Regulations The following rules and regulations, known as the Rules and Regulations of the District, may apply to the proposed project. It should be noted that at this time it is not known specifically what commercial enterprises might operate at the project site. Some commercial enterprises, such as dry cleaning facilities or bakeries, have air emissions regulated by the District and would be required to comply with other rules not listed below. Rule 4101 Visible Emissions. This rule prohibits the emissions of visible air contaminants to the atmosphere. The rule prohibits the discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission, any air contaminant, other than uncombined water vapor, for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark or darker in shade as that designated as No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart. Rule 4103 Open Burning. This rule regulates through a permit process open burning, including agricultural burning, to minimize the smoke impact on the public. The District utilized a daily allocation system to limit the amount, timing, and locations of open burning. The District considers several factors including air quality, meteorological conditions expected during burning, locations of smoke sensitive areas relative to the materials to be burned, and types and amounts of materials to be burned. Rule 4306 Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process Heaters, Phase 3. This rule requires all boilers and steam generators with a heat input rating greater than 5 million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr) to achieve certain exhaust limits for NOx and CO. This rule was established in 2003 as part of the strategy for achieving ozone attainment. 2 California Air Resources Board, The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2005, http://www.arb.ca.gov/Aqd/almanac/almanac.htm 3 Ibid. 4 California Air Resources Board, 2005, Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, March. 5 CARB, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Rule 4601 Architectural Coatings. The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from architectural coatings by regulating the storage, cleanup, and labeling requirements. Painting Practices: The rule requires that all containers containing architectural coatings (including any volatile material used for thinning or cleanup) be closed when not in use. The rule also set limits on the amount of volatile organic compounds in architectural coating and prohibits thinning such that the limits would be exceeded. Rule 4641, Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving and Maintenance Operations. This rule limits volatile organic compound emissions by restricting the application and manufacturing of cutback asphalt6, slow cure asphalt, or emulsified asphalt. Rule 4702 Internal Combustion Engines, Phase 2. This rule requires stationary engines to meet certain exhaust limits for NOx and CO, but these limits are not applicable to standby engines as long as they are used fewer than 200 hours per year for testing during non- emergencies). Rule 4901 Wood Burning Fireplaces and Wood Burning Heaters. This rule limits emissions of carbon monoxide and particulate matter from wood burning fireplaces and heaters by regulating the sale, supply, and installation of wood burning devices. Wood burning heaters must be U.S. EPA Phase II Certified and sellers must provide public information about proper operation and maintenance of the heater and the health effects of wood smoke. The rule also prohibits the installation of wood burning fireplaces in new residential developments with a density greater than two dwelling units per acre or more than one wood burning heater per dwelling unit in any new residential development with a density equal to or greater than two dwelling units per acre. Rule 4902 Natural Gas-fired, Fan-Type Residential Central Furnaces. This rule requires natural gas-fired, fan-type residential central furnaces sold or installed with the District be certified as meeting specified exhaust limits for NOx. Regulation VIII (Fugitive PM10 Prohibitions). These series of rules (8011, 8021, 8031, 8041, 8051, 8061, 8071, 8081) are aimed at reducing fugitive PM10 emissions. Sources regulated under these rules include construction, excavation, earthmoving activities, carryout and trackout, open areas, paved and unpaved roads, unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic areas, and agricultural sources. Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review (ISR). The purpose of this rule is to fulfill the District’s emission reduction commitments in the PM10 and Ozone Attainment Plans by reducing emission from the construction and operational uses of projects through design features and on-site measures. The rule also provides a mechanism for reducing emissions through off- site measures. These reductions are achieved through implementation of the Indirect Source Review Program. This rule applies to any applicant that seeks to gain a final discretionary approval for qualified projects.7 Development projects that have a mitigated baseline below two tons per year of NOx and two tons per year of PM10 are exempt. 6 Cutback asphalt is manufactured by blending asphalt cement with a petroleum solvent. 7 “Qualified Projects” include 50 residential units; 2,000 square feet of commercial space; 25,000 square feet of light industrial space; 100,000 square feet of heavy industrial space; 20,000 square feet of medical office space; 39,000 square feet of general office space; 9,000 square feet of educational space; 10,000 square feet of government space; 20,000 square feet of recreational space; or 9,000 square feet of space not otherwise identified. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 In the ISR process, the applicant must submit an Air Impact Assessment (AIA) application to the District at the same time as applying for a final discretionary approval from the relevant public agency. The project applicant must commit to reducing NOx and PM10 emissions from construction activities and operational use of the project. For construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower the NOx emissions must be reduced by 20 percent and the PM10 emissions 45 percent below the statewide average. The District believes that construction emissions can be achieved by using add-on controls, cleaner fuels, or newer equipment. Operational emissions must be reduced by 33 percent for NOx and 50 percent for PM10 below the project’s operational baseline at the time of buildout over a period of ten years. These emission reductions may be met through any combination of on-site emission reduction measures such as bike trails, or increases in energy efficiency, or through fees that fund emission reduction programs off-site. Implementation of the project in accordance with the District’s rules and regulations will provide consistency with the District’s planning documents for achieving ambient air quality standards. City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan Policies The City of Modesto recognizes that its actions can be coordinated to aid the District in the effort of attaining the ambient air quality standards. The Air Quality Policies of the Urban Area General Plan (amended March 4, 2003) analyzed in the City of Modesto’s Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan (March 2003) apply within the plan area, which includes the project site. The relevant Air Quality Policies include the following: Policy VII-H.2.b: The City and project proponents must implement measures to reduce vehicle use and associated emissions related to existing and future land use development in the City of Modesto. The following measures (summarized from Mitigation Measure AQ-4 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan) should be strongly encouraged, and incorporated into development plans and public facility plans, when it is shown to be appropriate and feasible: Projects within the City should propose pedestrian or transit-oriented designs at suitable locations. The City should require new major activity centers, office, and commercial development to provide secure bicycle storage and parking facilities. The City should establish transportation control measures and mandatory trip reduction and monitoring/reporting programs for all development within the Business Park (BP) designation. Such programs must ignore property boundaries so that paratransit and carpooling opportunities are cooperative and in common. Policy VII-H.2.c: The City shall implement measures to reduce emissions associated with energy use by residences and businesses. The following measures (summarized from Mitigation Measure AQ-6 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan) should be strongly encouraged, and incorporated into development plans and public facility plans, when it is shown to be appropriate and feasible: The City should cooperate with the local building industry, utilities, and the District to develop and adopt new building efficiency practices (standards) for commercial, ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 industrial, and residential buildings to reduce energy and water consumption below the amounts that would be used if the buildings only complied with the existing state standard. The City could implement a program to offer incentives for new developments that are more energy efficient than state energy standards at the time the building permit is issued. Incentives may include reduced permit fees or expedited permit processing. Through an annual awards program, the City could recognize outstanding projects. Policy VII-H.2.e: The City may adopt a Trip Reduction Ordinance which may include the following measures, most of which require implementation at the employer level (also identified as Mitigation Measure AQ-8 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan): 1. In-house matching services (for carpools and vanpools) at employers with over 100 weekday employees, or at large development sites occupied by several smaller employers, or coordination with Caltrans’ “Commuter Computer” program; 2. Employer-based dissemination of commute information; 3. Employer subsidies for transit passes and incorporation of transit stop facilities into site design; 4. A program to guarantee rideshare participants a ride home in case of emergency; 5. Flex-time scheduling; 6. Site plan design which encourages pedestrian movement between adjacent land uses; 7. Incentives such as preferred parking for carpoolers; 8. Encouraging submission of site plans featuring mixed land uses or “neo-traditional” design; and 9. Encouraging employers to experiment with telecommuting options, where feasible. Policy VII-H.2.m: The City shall require residential development projects and projects categorized as sensitive receptors (including hospitals) to be located an adequate distance from existing and potential sources of toxic and/or odorous emissions such as freeways, major arterials, industrial sites, refuse transfer or disposal sites, and hazardous material locations (also identified as Mitigation Measure AQ-18 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan). Assembly Bill 170, adopted in September 2003, amended the state Planning Law in the California Government Code to add Section 65302.1, requiring, after January 1, 2004, the legislative body of each city and county within the jurisdiction of the District to amend appropriate elements of general plans to include data, analyses, comprehensive goals, policies, and feasible implementation strategies to improve air quality no later than one year after the first revision of their housing elements that occurs after January 1, 2004. Cities and counties are required to submit these air quality amendments to the District at least 45 days prior to the adoption of those amendments, and the District has 30 days to return comments and advice. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 To facilitate this process, the District published a document entitled, “Air Quality Guidelines for General Plans.” That report is a comprehensive guidance document and resource used by cities and counties as a source for air quality measures to be included in their general plans. It includes goals, policies, and programs that, when adopted in a general plan, will reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled and improve air quality. The Tivoli Specific Plan contains many of the goals and policies suggested in the Air Quality Guidelines that support improved air quality. EXISTING LOCAL AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS In contrast to other air basins in California, the air quality in the SJVAB is not dominated by a single large urban source, but by a number of moderately sized urban areas spread along the valley main axis. While only 10 percent of California’s population lives in the San Joaquin Valley, pollution sources in the region account for about 14 percent of the total statewide criteria pollutant emissions. With the exception of PM10, emission levels in the SJVAB have been decreasing since 1990. This is primarily due to improved controls on motor vehicle emissions, which are the primary source of CO and NOx. A large source of ROG in the region comes from the oil and gas production in the lower San Joaquin Valley. Particulate matter emissions are primarily from road dust, agricultural operations, residential fuel combustion, and waste burning.8 The CARB and the District continually monitor the ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants including ozone, inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and carbon monoxide. The station nearest the project site is located approximately seven miles to the southeast on 14th Street in downtown Modesto. Table IV.E.3 summarizes the relevant data. Exceedances of the SO2 and lead violations have not been observed; and lead has been essentially eliminated from the atmosphere with use of unleaded fuels. In general, the average concentrations and associated health risks of most TACs for the SJVAB are lower than the statewide averages. The CARB monitors ambient TAC concentrations at six sites within the SJVAB (data for the Modesto 14th Street site is only available from 1990 through 1999 and additional data were collected from a monitoring site on I Street in Modesto between 1991 and 1997). CARB estimates that 70 percent of the known statewide cancer risk from outdoor air toxics is attributable to diesel PM.9 According to the most-recent District annual report on toxics, mobile sources are responsible for the greatest portion of emissions of many toxic air pollutants, such as benzene, formaldehyde, and diesel particulate matter. Due largely to 8 California Air Resources Board, The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2005 Edition, http://www.arb.ca.gov/Aqd/almanac/almanac.htm 9 California Air Resources Board, The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2005 Edition, http://www.arb.ca.gov/Aqd/almanac/almanac.htm ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.E.3: Ambient Air Quality Data Summary, Modesto Station Ozone CO Days Over State 1-hr Std. Max. 1-hr 3 yr Ave 4th Highest 1-hr Ave. Days Over Natnl. 8-hr Std. Max. 8-hr Ave. 3 yr Ave 4th High 8-hr Ave. Days Over Natnl. 8-hr Std. Max. Natnl. 8-hr Ave. Days Over State 8-hr Std. Max. State 8-hr Ave. (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) (ppm) Year 2000 7 0.131 0.131 4 0.101 0.090 0 5.98 0 5.98 2001 12 0.124 0.109 7 0.093 0.088 0 6.03 0 6.03 2002 14 0.120 0.109 6 0.096 0.088 0 4.46 0 4.46 2003 9 0.110 0.109 1 0.091 0.086 0 3.76 0 3.76 2004 2 0.104 0.106 0 0.084 0.083 0 2.98 0 2.98 2005 15 0.115 0.107 6 0.094 0.083 0 2.53 0 2.68 PM2.5 PM10 Year Est. Days Over Natnl. 24-hr Std. Max. 24-hr Ave. 3-Yr Ave. 98th percentile Est. Days Over Natnl. 24-hr Std. Max. Natnl. 24-hr Ave. Est. Days Over State 24- hr Std. Max. State 24- hr Ave. (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) (µg/m3) 2000 15.1 77 0 112 68.3 119 2001 8.7 95 80 3 158 60.8 160 2002 8.4 83 70 0 83 76.3 86 2003 0 64 62 0 70 26.3 71 2004 0 53 54 0 80 36 79 2005 53 0 93 51.4 97 Notes: hr = hour; yr = year; Ave. = Average; Std. = Standard; Max. = Maximum; Natnl. = National; ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. Source: CARB, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Accessed March 3, 2006. observed reductions in air toxics from motor vehicles, the calculated average cancer risk has been significantly reduced in recent years.10 EXISTING LOCAL SOURCE INVENTORY Throughout the SJVAB, agricultural operations and mobile sources account for the majority of ozone precursor and PM10 emissions. The majority of PM10 emissions in the San Joaquin Valley are attributed to farming operations and airborne dust from paved and unpaved roads.11 Managing growth in emissions from agricultural operations and emissions from all types of motor vehicle activity is an important component of the regional air quality attainment strategy. 10 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 2002 Air Toxics Annual Report, released May 2003. Available at: http://www.valleyair.org/busind/pto/air_toxics_annual_reports.htm. 11 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts, Technical Document, Section 3, revised January 10, 2002. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Industry and other stationary sources make up the remainder of the human-generated emissions in the SJVAB. Present land uses on the project site primarily include agricultural production, single-family residences, and some commercial/office space. Row crops and fallow fields make up the majority of the agricultural use throughout the north and central portions, with some orchards planted in the northwest corner of the site. Major sources of air emission sources in the vicinity are on- and off-road equipment and farming activities or burning that can create substantial dust or soot emissions. Agricultural land uses surrounding the project site can also occasionally cause emissions of TACs from pesticide application.12 A search of the stationary source facility database maintained by CARB13 indicated that there are nine major air pollutant emitters in Modesto. All are located approximately five or more miles from the project site, most south of downtown and near the airport. No notable stationary sources of air emissions are located within one mile of the project site. Mobile sources in the project vicinity are the major source of air emissions. Traffic on State Route 99 (SR 99) and other on-road vehicles throughout the region’s transportation network routinely emit ROG, NOx, and CO. On- and off-road vehicles are also a major source of respirable particulate matter emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) from entrained dust on the roadways. Exhaust from diesel train engines is another source of air emissions. There are railroad tracks both west (Union Pacific Railroad freight line) and east (Burlington Northern Santa Fe/Amtrak line) of the project site. SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Land uses such as schools, children’s day care centers, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be more sensitive than the general public to poor air quality, because the population groups found at these uses have increased susceptibility to respiratory distress. Persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise also have increased sensitivity to poor air quality. Residential areas are also considered more sensitive to air quality conditions compared to commercial and industrial areas because children generally spend longer periods of time there. Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity include existing single-family residential neighborhoods to the west, individual home sites to the north and east, and the Village One development to the south and east. Sensitive receptors in the Village One development include residential areas, a 12 The California Department of Pesticide Regulation is updating its process to improve management of the chemicals that pose the greatest risks (risk assessment prioritization), January 2004. Available at: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/. 13 California Air Resources Board, Community Health Air Pollution Information System (CHAPIS), search conducted December 2005. Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/gismo/chapis_v01_6_1_04/. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 high school, and a future community park. The area east of the project area is within the planned Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District and future plans include residential land uses. There are three schools located with one mile of the project site: Ustach Middle School, at 2701 Kodiak Drive, to the south; Beyer High School, 1717 Sylvan Avenue, to the west; James C. Enochs High School, to the east; Mary Ann Sanders Elementary School, northwest corner of Kodiak Drive and Fine Avenue, to the southeast; and Stockard Coffee Elementary School, 3900 Northview Drive, to the west. There are five day-care centers located with one mile of the project site: Childtime Learning Centers, at 2320 Floyd Avenue, located to the south; A Childs World Daycare, at 2405 Saddleback Lane, to the south; Price's Licensed Daycare, at 2521 Merle Avenue, to the south; Not Just Another Day Care, at 2809 Mars Hills Street, to the southeast; and Jenny's Stay N Play, at 3905 Northview Drive, to the west. There is one convalescent home located just south of the project site across Sylvan Avenue, Gentlecare Home, at 2705 Tradition Way. Currently, there are no hospitals or other convalescent homes located within one mile of the project site. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Thresholds of significance are based on those established by the District in 1998 and revised in 2002.14 The project would cause a significant adverse air quality impact if it would: Fail to comply with District’s PM10 mitigation measures during construction. The District has determined that compliance with Regulation VIII and implementation of other control measures presented in their guidance manual15 will constitute sufficient mitigation to reduce PM10 impact to a level considered less-than-significant. Cause emissions of air pollutants that would cause or substantially contribute to either localized or regional violations of the ambient air quality standards. Project emissions of 14 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), revised January 10, 2002, Section 4.3. 15 Ibid, Tables 6-2 and 6.3. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.15 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 more than 10 tons-per-year of NOx or ROG would substantially contribute to existing violations of ozone standards.16 Cause localized CO concentrations to exceed the CAAQS of 9 parts per million (ppm) averaged over 8 hours or 20 ppm averaged over one hour.17 Cause odor problems that result in more than one confirmed complaint per year, averaged over a three-year period, or three unconfirmed complaints per year averaged over a three-year period.18 Expose sensitive receptors or the general public to substantial levels of TACs, based on potential to increase cancer risk for the person with maximum exposure potential by 10 in one million or a non-cancer Hazard Index greater than one.19 Since the District is in non-attainment for ozone and PM10, the EIR for the City’s General Plan Update in 200320 considered that any net increase in ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) or PM10 would be identified as a significant impact. The project would thus have a significant adverse effect on air quality if it would: Exceed the City’s threshold of significance for ozone precursors and PM10. If project development would individually cause a significant air quality impact from project operations, then the cumulative impacts of the project would be considered significant. The fourth bulleted issue, the effects of odor from the project, was considered in the Initial Study for the project (Appendix A) and was found to have no impact. Therefore, further discussion of these topics in this EIR is unnecessary METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS Emissions from construction can vary considerably depending on the specific activities taking place, level of activity, soil conditions, and weather. The District emphasizes implementation of control measures determined by the District to be effective and comprehensive rather than 16 Ibid, Table 4-1. 17 Ibid, page 26. 18 Ibid, page 27. 19 The Hazard Index is calculated by summing the hazard quotients for substances that affect the same target organ or organ system respiratory system). The hazard quotient is the ratio of potential exposure to the substance and the level at which no adverse health effects are expected. An HI of less than 1 indicates no adverse health effects are expected as a result of exposure and an HI greater than 1 indicates adverse health effects are possible. 20 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan, March 2003. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.16 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 detailed quantification of construction emissions.21 The analysis in this EIR identifies all feasible control measures for emissions of construction dust and equipment exhaust emissions. Analysis of emissions from project operations involves predicting regional emission changes that would be caused by a large new source of employment and intensification of land use. Large- scale development can cause new mobile source activity, which increases emissions from motor vehicles, and new stationary or area-wide sources. Mobile source emissions depend on the nature of the new vehicle trips. Among the complex variables that affect emission estimates are the trip trip speeds, and the nature of trip ends whether it is followed by another trip in rapid succession or followed by a lull where the vehicle has an opportunity to cool off). The URBEMIS 2002 (Version 8.7.0) computer model published by CARB is used to analyze regional emissions from vehicle trips generated by the project.22 This model includes the CARB-adopted emission factors for the statewide motor vehicle fleet in future years. The analysis for this EIR estimates future mobile source emissions based on the anticipated vehicle trip generation estimates from the Traffic Study23 and the CARB vehicle emission rates for the San Joaquin Valley. For operational emission projections beyond 2010, URBEMIS evaluates emissions at 5- year intervals, i.e., 2015, 2020, etc. The year 2010 was used as opposed to the year 2015 in the evaluation of operational emissions because a large portion of the build-out was predicted to occur by 2012 and use of an earlier evaluation year is more conservative due to the model’s assumptions about decreasing engine emissions in future years. Area source emissions, which include emissions from new natural gas combustion for energy and heating, landscaping activities, and use of consumer products, are also analyzed using URBEMIS 2002. Because carbon monoxide conditions have improved greatly since the early 1990s, this analysis uses a tiered methodology for analyzing localized CO impacts caused by congested traffic. If heavy traffic would cause the level of service (LOS) on streets or intersections to deteriorate to LOS E or F, or if traffic would substantially worsen at an intersection or street currently operating in an LOS F condition, then the future localized concentrations of CO are predicted and compared to the ambient air quality standards. If these traffic conditions would not occur, then no potential violations of the CO standards are expected to occur. The CALINE4 (CL4) dispersion model provided by Caltrans is used to determine worst-case localized CO concentrations where analysis is necessary based on deteriorated traffic. Worst-case concentrations are identified by modeling 21 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), revised January 10, 2002, p. 24. 22 Jones & Stokes Associates, Software User’s Guide: URBEMIS 2002 for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, Version 8.7.0, April 2005. 23 Dowling Associates, Inc., Traffic Impact Assessment for the Tivoli Specific Plan EIR, February 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.17 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 receptors in locations that provide maximum exposure of the receptor to vehicle exhaust with an assumed stable atmosphere that would provide limited dispersion.24 Evaluating impacts of TACs and odors is accomplished by considering whether notable sources of TACs or objectionable odors would occur with the project, and whether project emissions would be located near existing and future sensitive receptors. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact E.1. Emissions of criteria pollutants during project construction would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. (Significant and Unavoidable) Site preparation and project construction would include soil excavation and backfilling, grading, and equipment vehicular traffic using paved and unpaved roads. Soils exposed during construction activities would be subject to wind erosion. As a result, short-term dust emissions would cause a temporary increase in localized PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations compared to existing conditions. Construction-related impacts also result from emissions from construction equipment burning fossil fuels. The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are considered by the CARB to be the greatest pollutant of concern associated with construction activities. PM10 evades the respiratory system’s natural defenses and can lodge deep in the lungs when inhaled, aggravating chronic respiratory diseases. Children, the elderly, and those suffering from asthma, bronchitis, heart disease, or lung disease are particularly vulnerable to the adverse health effects of PM10 exposure. Long-term exposure to PM10 at levels exceeding State standards can lead to an increase in respiratory and cardiac illness, exacerbation of asthma, and increased death rates. PM2.5 are those particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns. Exposure to fine particulate matter has been linked to health problems, including asthma, bronchitis, acute and chronic respiratory shortness of breath and painful breathing), and premature death. People with existing heart or lung disease asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart disease, ischemic heart disease) are at risk of premature death or admission to hospitals or emergency rooms when exposed to PM2.5. The elderly, individuals with cardiopulmonary disease, and children appear to be at greatest risk. Most of the premature deaths are among the elderly, because their immune systems are generally weaker due to age or other health problems. Children are also susceptible to the health risks of 24 University of California Davis, Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol), Appendix B, December 1997. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.18 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 PM2.5 because their immune and respiratory systems are not yet fully matured. In addition, PM2.5 particles are a major source of visibility impairment. The District’s approach to CEQA analyses of construction impacts is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. Fine particulate matter (PM10) is the pollutant of greatest concern with respect to construction activities. The District recognizes that construction equipment emits carbon monoxide and ozone precursors; however, these emissions are accounted for in the PM10 Attainment Demonstration Plan and are not expected to impede attainment of the standard in the SJVAB. From the District’s perspective, quantification of construction emissions is not necessary. The District has not developed pollution-specific quantitative threshold values for air emissions from construction activities. If all the PM10 control measures developed by the District are implemented, as appropriate, then the District considers air emissions from construction activities a less-than-significant impact. However, the City considers any net increase in PM10 emissions a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure E.1, below, would reduce the significance of this impact to the extent possible, but would still result in a net increase in emissions. Mitigation Measure E.1 The construction plans for each group of building permits shall incorporate the following recommendations from the District to minimize emissions during construction phases: The project developers shall review Regulation VIII of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District regulations and submit a compliance plan to the City of Modesto prior to commencing any phase of construction. The compliance plan must demonstrate that the current requirements of Regulation VIII will be implemented. Prior to the issuance of construction contracts, the project developers shall perform a review of new technology, as it relates to heavy-duty equipment, to determine what, if any, advances in emissions reduction are available for use. It is anticipated that in the near future both NOx and PM10 control equipment will be available. The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District should be consulted during this process. The project developers shall limit traffic speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. The project developers shall install sandbags or other control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than 1 percent. The project developers shall install wheel washers for all exiting trucks, or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site, to prevent track-out of soil to public roadways. The project developers shall install windbreaks at windward sides of construction areas, if necessary to prevent wind-blown dust. The project developers shall suspend excavation and grading activity when winds exceed 20 miles per hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.19 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The project developers shall limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one time. The project developers shall ensure that the accumulation of mud or dirt is expeditiously removed from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when construction activities are occurring (the use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions). The project developers shall use alternative-fuel construction equipment, where feasible. The project developers shall minimize idling time to a 10-minute maximum). The project developers shall limit the hours of operation of heavy-duty equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use to the minimum practical. The project developers shall replace fossil-fueled equipment with electrically driven equivalents (provided they are not run via a portable generator set), where feasible. The project developers shall take steps to curtail construction activity during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations; this may include reducing construction activity during the peak hour of vehicular traffic on adjacent roadways or ceasing construction activity during days declared as Spare the Air days by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. The project developers shall implement activity management to reduce cumulative short- term impacts. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts of construction-related PM10 and impacts of ozone precursors from construction equipment exhaust, but in the opinion of the City of Modesto, not to a less-than-significant level. This impact would therefore remain significant and unavoidable. Impact E.2. Emissions of criteria pollutants during project operation would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. (Significant and Unavoidable) Air quality impacts to the regional air basin depend on the growth of the emission inventory. Because the San Joaquin Valley is designated a nonattainment area for violations of the ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, any new emissions of these pollutants and their precursors could cause or contribute to continuing violations of state and national air quality standards. Although motor vehicle sources are the subject of numerous state and federal emission control requirements currently in place, the regional benefits provided by those programs are being offset by local population growth and resultant increase in the levels of vehicular activity. The proposed project would cause motor vehicle emissions to increase because of additional vehicle trips, and it would also cause minor amounts of emissions from stationary sources. Buildout (with operation and occupation) of any phase of the proposed project would increase motor vehicle activity in the region by generating and attracting vehicle trips. Increased motor vehicle activity would cause increased emissions of ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOx) ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.20 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 and respirable particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Along with motor vehicle emissions, emissions from stationary and area sources would also increase with the development. Stationary sources associated with the proposed project are substantially less than the mobile sources and would include the natural gas use for equipment such as water heaters, landscape equipment, consumer products, and architectural coatings (paint). The emission increases caused by operation of the proposed project are quantified in Table IV.E.4. Residential wood burning is a significant source of air pollution in the SJVAB, accounting for about 25 tons per day of particulates during winter months.25 Additionally, on the worst winter nights, wood smoke can be responsible for up to one-third of the particulate matter air pollution in urban areas. This evaluation was performed in conformance with the District’s current residential wood-burning rule, Rule 4901; in “new residential developments with more than two dwellings per acre, no wood-burning devices are allowed.” The modeling performed assumed that any fireplaces would be natural gas fireplaces in conformity with this rule. The health effects of particulates are discussed under Impact E.1. Emissions of ozone precursors (NOx and ROG) and PM10 for any portion of the proposed project would exceed the significance thresholds. Primarily, the project-related emissions would be from motor vehicle activity, but emissions from heating and other energy use would also contribute to this significant impact. It should be noted that although impacts from motor vehicle emissions of NOx, CO, and ROG diminish into the future based on state and federal emission control requirements for improving tailpipe emissions, ozone impacts would be significant for any phase of the project and would not be offset by the foreseeable reductions. Emissions of CO would not substantially affect regional air quality, but they could adversely affect local conditions near heavy traffic areas (as discussed under Impact E.3, below). To mitigate the project’s significant impacts related to ozone, the District recommends implementing a combination of strategies that minimizes the project’s vehicle travel demand and the demand for heating, cooling, and other energy use. Ozone exposure causes eye irritation and damage to lung tissue in humans. Ozone also harms vegetation, reduces crop yields, and accelerates deterioration of paints, finishes, rubber products, plastics, and fabrics. Carbon monoxide is an odorless, colorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fuels. Emissions are highest during cold starts, hard acceleration, stop-and-go driving, and when a vehicle is moving at low speeds. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is 25 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District website, http://www.valleyair.org/SJV_main.asp, Wood-burning heaters and stoves, Frequently asked questions about amendments to the Valley Air District’s wood-burning rule, accessed March 13, 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.21 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.E.4: Project Operational Emissions - Year 2010 (tons per year) ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Area Sources Natural Gas Use 0.53 6.93 3.55 0.00 0.01 Landscaping 0.56 0.07 4.4 0.02 0.01 Consumer Products 28 Architectural Coatings 11 Subtotal 40 7.0 7.9 0.02 0.03 Mobile Sources Single Family Housing 14 22 165 0.1 22 Low-rise Condo 10 15 114 0.1 15 Apartments 8 12 94 0.1 13 Elementary School 1.4 1.6 12.3 0.0 1.6 City Park 0.04 0.05 0.35 0.00 0.05 Shopping Center 3.8 5.1 39 0.03 4.8 Regional Shopping Center 16 22 167 0.12 21 Home Improvement Center 3.7 4.9 37 0.03 4.5 Regional Serving Commercial 17 22 168 0.1 21 Supermarket 6.6 8.6 66 0.05 8.1 Fast Food 5.9 6.0 49 0.03 5.0 Gas Station 1.6 1.7 13 0.0 1.4 Gasoline/Service Station 1.6 1.5 12 0.0 1.2 Professional Office 1.5 2.3 17 0.01 2.3 Subtotal 90 125 953 0.69 121 TOTAL EMISSIONS 130 132 961 0.72 121 Significance Thresholds* 10 10 NA NA NA Notes: “ indicates an insignificant level; NA indicates no numeric threshold established (see Table IV.E.5) * Significant threshold from San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), revised January 10, 2002. Source: URBEMIS2002 Analysis, BASELINE Environmental Consulting, September 2006. especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia, as well as for fetuses. Even healthy people exposed to high CO concentrations may experience headaches, dizziness, fatigue, unconsciousness, and even death. Motor vehicle exhaust and the particulate matter made airborne by increased traffic each contain fine particulate matter (PM2.5) as a subset of PM10 emissions, and exhaust from fuel combustion contains emissions that are precursors to PM2.5 that may be formed further downwind. There are no established methods to quantify direct PM2.5 emissions or the impacts of PM2.5 emissions and precursors, but the project would cause new PM2.5 emissions that could contribute to existing elevated concentrations of particulate matter. Because particulate matter emissions would be proportional to motor vehicle activity, measures that would reduce emissions from motor vehicles can be used to reduce impacts related to particulate matter. Implementation of mitigation measures to reduce emissions from motor vehicle activity and other project-related sources would ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.22 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 reduce the impacts to regional ozone and particulate matter concentrations. These measures are derived from the policies adopted in the City of Modesto’s Urban Area General Plan accompanying the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan. Requiring an Indirect Source Mitigation Fee from the project developer was also considered as a potentially feasible mitigation (as identified in the District PM10 Attainment Demonstration Plan), but was rejected because the District has not yet developed formal recommendations on how to implement such a program. Mitigation Measures E.2.a–E.2.c, below, may reduce project emissions shown in Table IV.E.4, on p. IV.E.21, but not by more than about 10 percent. Even with mitigation, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure E.2a The site design shall fulfill the following requirements to reduce emissions from motor vehicle activity: The project developers shall incorporate improvements for transit service, including bus turnouts, transit loading areas, and shelters. The project developers shall incorporate sidewalks and bicycle paths throughout the site and connect those facilities to any nearby pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including those located at open space areas, parks, schools, or commercial areas. The project developers shall incorporate secure bicycle storage and parking facilities throughout the site. Mitigation Measure E.2b The project developers shall prepare a trip reduction plan to reduce emissions from motor vehicle activity. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Modesto prior to occupation of each element of the proposed project. To be compliant with the policies of the Urban Area General Plan, the trip reduction plan shall address how the following features would be implemented: Provision of matching services (for participants in carpools and vanpools) by employers with over 100 weekday employees or coordination with Caltrans’ “Commuter Computer” program; Employer-based dissemination of commute information; Employer subsidies for transit passes and incorporation of transit stop facilities into site design; A program to guarantee rideshare participants a ride home in case of emergency; Flex-time scheduling; Site plan design which encourages pedestrian movement between adjacent land uses; ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.23 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Incentives such as preferred location of 4 percent of parking for carpoolers and hybrid or other clean-fuel vehicles; and Encouraging employers to experiment with telecommuting options, where feasible. Mitigation Measure E.2c The site design shall fulfill the following requirements to reduce emissions from energy consumption: The project developers shall incorporate energy efficient building design features including automated control systems for heating and air conditioning and overall energy efficiency at least 10 percent beyond the requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations), using features such as increased wall and ceiling insulation beyond Energy Code requirements, light colored roof materials to reflect heat, and energy efficient lighting and lighting controls.26 The project developers shall design buildings with windows and/or skylights oriented to maximize natural cooling and heating in accordance with the California Energy Commission’s 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. The project developers shall incorporate approved deciduous trees to provide shade on the south- and west-facing sides of buildings. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to regional ozone and particulate matter concentrations, but the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact E.3. Motor vehicle emissions would locally contribute to elevated concentrations of carbon monoxide. (Less than Significant) Project-related traffic would cause or contribute to existing traffic on local roadways, which could result in locally elevated concentrations of CO. The existing CO emissions (shown in Table IV.E.3) comply with the ambient air quality standards for CO, but near heavy traffic areas, the motor vehicle exhaust combines with the existing background conditions. During stagnant weather conditions, the exhaust contaminant could build up around locations where high levels of slow-moving traffic would occur. Using CALINE4 and traffic volumes from the traffic study, three intersections Bridgewood Way and Oakdale Road, Lancey Drive and Oakdale Road, and Tivoli E and Oakdale Road were evaluated for elevated CO concentrations. The traffic analysis indicated that these locations would fail to operate at acceptable LOS in the future.27 26 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 2005, Final Draft Staff Report, Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review (ISR) and Rule 3180 – Administrative Fees For Indirect Source Review 15 December. 27 Dowling Associates, Inc., Traffic Impact Assessment for the Tivoli Specific Plan EIR, February 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.24 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The background 1-hour CO concentration used in the model was 4.47 ppm. This was conservatively based on an 8-hour concentration of 2.68 ppm, the highest CO concentration measured in 2005 at the Modesto 14th Street station, and assuming persistence factor of 0.6.28 Table IV.E.5 identifies the locations for the CO analysis and the expected CO concentrations with the various phases of the proposed project. As indicated in Table IV.E.5, the maximum one-hour CO impact with project-generated traffic would be approximately 8.2 ppm, which would be below the CAAQS of 20 ppm, and the maximum eight-hour CO impact would be approximately 4.9, below the CAAQS of 9 ppm. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not contribute significantly to locally elevated concentrations of CO. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. Impact E.4. Emissions during project operation would cause sensitive receptors to be exposed to TACs. (Less than Significant) The Tivoli Specific Plan proposes a regional commercial shopping center, which would require delivery of goods by large diesel fueled trucks. CARB guidance29 suggests avoiding developments that would place new sensitive land uses within 1,000 feet of a distribution center that has 100 or more trucks per day, more than 40 trucks with operating transportation refrigeration units (TRUs) per day, or where TRU unit operations exceed 300 hours per week. Truck trips for the regional shopping centers would be expected to generate substantially fewer than 100 diesel trucks per day or 40 trucks per day operating TRUs. In addition, CARB has adopted an airborne toxic control measure that prohibits idling of a vehicle more than five minutes at any one location.30 Elimination of unnecessary idling would reduce the localized impacts caused by diesel PM10, PM2.5, and other air toxics. CARB also operates a smoke inspection program for heavy-duty diesel trucks that focuses on reducing truck emissions in California communities. The proposed commercial and residential land uses within the project would not generate substantial TAC emissions that would adversely affect nearby sensitive receptors. No stationary source of TACs within a two-mile radius of the project center has been found to emit TACs at a level that represents an unacceptable increased health risk to the general public. TACs from sources at greater distances would be expected to disperse to below levels of concern prior to 28 University of California Davis, Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol), Appendix B, December 1997. 29 California Air Resources Board, Proposed Air Quality And Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, March 2005. 30 Title 13, California Code of Regulations Section 2485 - Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.25 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.E.5: Localized Carbon Monoxide Concentrations (parts per million) Existing 2005 2012 Baseline 2012 with Project 2017 Baseline 2017 with Project 2025 Baseline 2025 with Project AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM AM/PM 1-Hour Concentrations Location Bridgewood Way /Oakdale Road 6.8/7.0 6.9/7.1 7.2/7.8 6.4/6.6 6.5/7.2 5.9/6.0 6.0/6.1 Lancey Drive/Oakdale Road 10.1/11.4 7.6/8.2 7.9/8.4 6.5/6.9 6.7/7.1 5.4/6.0 5.8/6.0 Tivoli E/Oakdale Road 6.6/7.3 6.4/6.7 5.7/6.3 8-Hour Concentrations Location Bridgewood Way /Oakdale Road 4.1/4.2 4.1/4.3 4.3/4.7 3.8/4.0 4.0/4.3 3.5/3.6 3.6/3.7 Lancey Drive/Oakdale Road 6.1/6.8 4.6/4.9 4.7/5.0 4.0/4.1 4.0/4.3 3.2/3.6 3.5/3.6 Tivoli E/Oakdale Road 4.0/4.4 3.8/4.0 Notes: Assumes future continuation of background CO concentrations of 7.9 ppm (1-hour) and 5.5 ppm (8-hour). California Ambient Air Quality Standards for CO: 20 ppm (1-hour) and 9 ppm (8-hour). = intersection does not exist. Source: CALINE4 Analysis, BASELINE, 2006. reaching the project site. Since implementation of the project would not cause or increase sensitive receptors’ exposure to TACs, this is a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. Impact E.5. Emissions of objectionable odors could occur during project operation. (Less than Significant) The proposed commercial and residential land uses within the project would not generate objectionable odors during routine operation. Types of facilities identified by the District as likely sources of nuisance odors are listed below: Wastewater treatment facilities Sanitary landfills Composting facilities Petroleum refinery Asphalt batch plant Chemical manufacturing plant Fiberglass manufacturing plant Painting/coating operations ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.26 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Food processing facilities Feed lots/dairies Rendering plants None of these types of facilities are located within a mile of the project site. This is a less-than- significant impact. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact E.6. The project would cause a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley is designated as nonattainment. (Significant and Unavoidable) On-going population and employment growth in the San Joaquin Valley, when combined with the proposed project would cumulatively increase mobile source activity and associated regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10. Emissions from the project would occur during construction phases but would be short-term. Even with full mitigation (as described in Impact E.1 and E.2), the net increase of construction-related emissions would be cumulatively considerable according to the City of Modesto’s significance criterion for construction emissions resulting in a net increase of PM10 or ozone precursors. It should be noted that compliance with the District’s suggested construction-related mitigation measures is considered by the District to be sufficient mitigation for construction-related emissions. The operational phase of the proposed project would contribute to the regional violations of the ozone and PM10 standards (as described in Impact E.2). Because all sources in the region also contribute to these impacts, any individual project impact would also be cumulatively considerable, and the project’s cumulative impacts to the region’s ability to attain the ozone and PM10 standards would be significant. Mitigation Measure E.6 See mitigation measures listed under Impacts E.1 and E.2. With implementation of these measures, significant cumulative impacts would be reduced but not to less-than-significant levels. Impact E.7. The proposed project, including annexation of the proposed parcels to the City of Modesto and changes to adopted community plans, could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ozone and PM10 attainment plans. (Significant and Unavoidable) The proposed project includes annexing parcels to the City of Modesto and changing the land use designations for parcels within the Tivoli Specific Plan project site area to accommodate the changes in land use designations. Reviewing the consistency of these changes with the ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.27 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 regionwide ozone and PM10 Attainment Demonstration Plans provides an analysis of program- level impacts in a cumulative context. The District plans for growth in the region, in part, based on assuming the land use designations in various General Plans and based on assumptions about the rate of population growth. The ozone and PM10 Attainment Demonstration Plans therefore evolved to reflect the changing projections for growth in the San Joaquin Valley. Employment growth would be less than 2 percent of that projected within the Planned Urbanizing Area, consistent with the expectations of the Urban Area General Plan. The project-related employment growth would be consistent with that anticipated citywide in the City’s Urban Area General Plan; therefore, emissions associated with the proposed project would be consistent with the District attainment plans, which are based on overall growth projections such as those identified in the General Plan. The projected growth is also consistent with growth projections in the Stanislaus Council of Governments Draft 2004 Regional Transportation Plan, which predicted a population growth of 1001 to 3000 people per traffic analysis zone (TAZ) and an employment growth of 201 to 1000 jobs between 2000 and 2030 per traffic analysis zone. The project site is located in four TAZs: 611, 692, 693 and 694. StanCOG predicts population growth between 4,004 to 12,000 persons for this location; the project anticipates population growth of 9,269 persons, which falls within StanCOG population projections. Therefore, the project’s anticipated growth would not exceed StanCOG projections for this location. The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan is consistent with the policies set forth in the Stanislaus Council of Governments Draft 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (Transportation Plan). The Transportation Plan seeks to improve the regional transportation system by reducing traffic congestion, which would assist in improving regional air quality. Improvements promote transportation demand management strategies, including the following in the Tivoli Specific Plan elements: mixed-use development, bicycle lanes, and improved pedestrian walkways. Other Transportation Plan policies, such as ridesharing and public transit facilities, are included as mitigation measures in Section IV.D, Traffic and Circulation, of this EIR to reduce traffic impacts. The project’s significant air quality impacts would mainly be from mobile source activity (traffic), i.e., vehicle trips associated with residents and commercial enterprises. Some of the project’s individual impacts would be offset by reduced emissions elsewhere in the region, such as emissions from agricultural operations which account for approximately 34 percent of PM10 emissions in Stanislaus County31 or population relocation, i.e., vehicle miles traveled by new 31 CARB, 2006, 2005 Almanac Data, Particulate Matter < 10 Microns Projected Emission Inventory Stanislaus County Report Type: Grown and Controlled Season: Annual Average Base Year: 2004, May - http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emsmain/reportform.htm. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.28 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 residents who relocate from within the Basin may not have any additional net effect on the regional air quality. However, the impact of project emissions would remain cumulatively significant. This impact is designated as significant and unavoidable because project-related emissions would significantly contribute to on-going and cumulative violations of ozone and PM10 standards (as described in Impact E.2). Emission increases caused by the project in combination with other development in the region would delay the region’s progress in attaining the ozone and PM10 standards. Thus, despite achieving consistency with the attainment plans, project-related emissions would be likely to obstruct implementation of the attainment plans, causing a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Mitigation Measure E.7 See mitigation measures listed under Impact E.2. With implementation of these measures, the significant cumulative impacts would be reduced, but not to less-than-significant levels. Global Climate Change Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer).32 Climate change, in the context of this discussion, is the change in global climate that is considered to be a result of human activities burning fossil fuels, deforestation, reforestation, urbanization, desertification) that have increased the volume of greenhouse gases (GHGs) present in the atmosphere and have thereby caused the earth’s atmosphere to heat up. Description of the Greenhouse Effect Heat retention within our atmosphere is an essential process to sustain life on Earth. The natural process through which heat is retained in the troposphere33 is called the “greenhouse effect.” Short-wave radiation emitted by the Sun is absorbed by the Earth; the Earth emits a portion of this energy in the form of long-wave radiation; and GHGs in the upper atmosphere absorb this long-wave radiation and emit it into space and toward the Earth. This “trapping” of the long- wave (thermal) radiation emitted back toward the Earth is the underlying process of the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average temperature would be 32 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Glossary of Climate Change Terms. Website accessed on August 2, 2007 at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Climate_change. 33 The troposphere is the bottom layer of the atmosphere, which varies in height from the Earth’s surface to 10 to 12 kilometers. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.29 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 approximately -18 degrees Celsius Fahrenheit instead of its present 14°C (57°F).34 The most abundant GHGs are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Many other trace gases have greater ability to absorb and re-radiate long-wave radiation; however, these gases are not as plentiful. Primary Greenhouse Gases Greenhouse gases include, but are not limited to, the following: carbon dioxide (CO2), which is generated primarily by fossil fuel combustion in stationary and mobile sources, is the most widely emitted GHG; methane, which is emitted from living organisms or biological processes, incomplete combustion in forest fires, landfills, manure management, and leaks in natural gas pipelines; nitrous oxide (N2O), which is produced by both natural and human- related sources that include agricultural soil management, animal manure management, sewage treatment, mobile and stationary combustion of fossil fuel, adipic acid production, and nitric acid production; hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning; perfluorocarbons (PFCs), which are compounds consisting of carbon and fluorine and are primarily created as a byproduct of aluminum production and semi-conductor manufacturing; and sulfur hexafluoride, which is most commonly used as an electrical insulator in high voltage equipment that transmits and distributes electricity.35 Effects of Global Climate Change The primary effect of global climate change has been a rise in average global tropospheric temperature of 0.2 Celsius per decade, determined from meteorological measurements worldwide between 1990 and 2005.36 Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further warming would occur, which would induce further changes in the global climate system during the current century.37 Changes to the global climate system and ecosystems and to California would include, but would not be limited to: The loss of sea ice and mountain snow pack, resulting in higher sea levels and higher sea surface evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in tropospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’s ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures; 34 National Climatic Data Center, Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions. Website accessed on August 2, 2007 at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html 35 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Working Group I, The Science of Climate Change - Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the IPCC, Cambridge (UK), Cambridge University Press, 1996. 36 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, available at http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html, website accessed on August 20, 2007. 37 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.30 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Rise in global average sea level, primarily due to thermal expansion and melting of glaciers and ice caps and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets; Changes in weather that include widespread changes in precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, and more energetic aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones; Decline of the Sierra snowpack, which accounts for approximately half of the surface water storage in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years;38 Increase in the number of days conducive to ozone formation by 25 to 85 percent (depending on the future temperature scenario) in high ozone areas of Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21st century;39 and High potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and sea water intrusion into the Delta and levee systems due to the rise in sea level.40 Project Effects on Global Climate The primary source of GHGs in California is fossil fuel combustion. The primary GHG associated with fuel combustion is carbon dioxide, with lesser amounts of methane and nitrous oxide. The project would result in emissions of these GHGs due to fuel combustion in motor vehicles and building heating systems associated with the project. Building and motor vehicle air conditioning systems may use HFCs (and hydrochlorofluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons to the extent that they have not been completely phased out at later dates), which may result in emissions through leaks. The other GHGs (perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride) are associated with specific industrial sources and are not expected to be associated with the proposed project. While the project would result in emissions of GHGs, the significance of the impact of a single project on global climate cannot be determined for the following reasons: no guidance currently exists to indicate what level of GHG emissions would be considered substantial enough to result in a significant project-level impact on global climate; available global climate change models are not sensitive enough to be able to predict the effect of a single project on global temperatures and the resultant effect on climate; and inadequate data is available on the relative contributions of other developing nations generating these source emissions, e.g. China, to accurately evaluate the project’s share. Thus, insufficient information and predictive tools exist to assess whether a single project would result in a significant impact on global climate. For these reasons, determining the significance of the project’s impact on global climate would involve undue 38 California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature (Executive Summary), March 2006. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.31 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 speculation. Therefore, the contribution of the project is discussed below qualitatively and no conclusion as to its significance is drawn in this EIR as that would involve undue speculation. The proposed project includes specific Land Use and Circulation Objectives (see Chapter III, Project Description, pp. III.2-III.3) that incorporate neotraditional planning principles. These principles promote the development of mixed use concepts that encourage transit, walking, and bicycle trips to schools, recreational facilities, commercial and retail service locations, and work. The proposed development standards, design guidelines, and landscaping programs advance the integration of commercial, retail, and residential uses to create a visually engaging and active community. The neotraditional planning principle centers on the development of a complete and integrated mix of commercial, residential, and professional office land uses around an elementary school and neighborhood park where the typical residents’ essential daily needs are available within walking distance. The proposed project seeks to amend the Modesto Urban Area General Plan to allow increased residential densities, to reclassify a portion of Village Residential land use to Regional Commercial land use, and to allow the development of local-oriented commercial and office space in excess of the amount currently allowed for the project area, 4 percent. A network of roads and pedestrian paths with integrated bicycling facilities would unite the mix of land uses. Bicycling and walking trips would be enhanced by a 30-foot-wide landscaped linear parkway along the primary community collector streets, and transit service, currently provided along perimeter streets, would likely be expanded or enhanced. The increased residential densities, the emphasis on walking and bicycling, and implementation of the project’s proposed development standards, design guidelines, and landscape programs provide the framework for orderly and efficient urban expansion. Potential reductions in the number of vehicle trips that result from the mixed use development would minimize GHG emissions associated with the project. The proposed project would also be subject to the rules established by the District, the CARB, and the U.S. EPA. These rules have been adopted to reduce and control criteria pollutant emissions throughout the Basin. For example, the proposed project will comply with the requirements set forth by Rule 4901, which is to limit emissions from wood-burning fireplaces and heaters by restricting the number of such devices that are permitted in a residential development. Additionally, compliance with Rule 4901 would restrict the CO2 emissions from the project. The CARB has adopted, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1493, emission standards that are intended to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks. Compliance with these rules and regulations would minimize GHG emissions associated with the project. In addition, the project includes a number of mitigation measures (Mitigation Measures E.1 and E.2a through c) that not only address criteria pollutants but also GHGs. For instance, Mitigation Measure E.2a states that site design shall fulfill the following requirements to reduce emissions from motor vehicle activity: ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.32 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The project developers shall incorporate improvements for transit service, including bus turnouts, transit loading areas, and shelters. The project developers shall incorporate sidewalks and bicycle paths throughout the site and connect those facilities to any nearby pedestrian and bicycle facilities, including those located at open space areas, parks, schools, or commercial areas. The project developers shall incorporate secure bicycle storage and parking facilities throughout the site. Mitigation Measure E.2b states that a trip reduction plan shall be prepared by the project developer as a tool to reduce emissions from motor vehicle activity. The trip reduction plan would address the implementation of the following features: Provision of matching services (for participants in carpools and vanpools) by employers with over 100 weekday employees or coordination with Caltrans’ “Commuter Computer” program; Employer-based dissemination of commute information; Employer subsidies for transit passes and incorporation of transit stop facilities into site design; A program to guarantee rideshare participants a ride home in case of emergency; Flex-time scheduling; Site plan design which encourages pedestrian movement between adjacent land uses; Incentives such as preferred location of 4 percent of parking for carpoolers and hybrid or other clean-fuel vehicles; and Encouraging employers to experiment with telecommuting options, where feasible. And finally, Mitigation Measure E.2c addresses actions that would be taken in site design preparation to limit emissions from energy consumption. The project developers shall incorporate energy efficient building design features including automated control systems for heating and air conditioning and overall energy efficiency at least 10 percent beyond the requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, California Code of Regulations), using features such as increased wall and ceiling insulation beyond Energy Code requirements, light colored roof materials to reflect heat, and energy efficient lighting and lighting controls.41 The project developers shall design buildings with windows and/or skylights oriented to maximize natural cooling and heating in accordance with the California Energy Commission’s 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. 41 San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, Final Draft Staff Report, Rule 9510 – Indirect Source Review (ISR) and Rule 3180 – Administrative Fees For Indirect Source Review, December 14, 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation E. Air Quality Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.E.33 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The project developers shall incorporate approved deciduous trees to provide shade on the south- and west-facing sides of buildings. Implementation of the mitigation measures would further minimize the project’s GHG emissions. In summary, the GHG emissions from the project would be small in comparison to global and California emissions. In fact, California’s entire human-related contribution is less than 2 percent of the global emissions based on 2004 estimates. Therefore, although there are no quantitative thresholds to use, it is noteworthy that the project’s contribution as a percentage of global emissions and/or California emissions would be very small. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 F. NOISE This section addresses the environmental noise impacts associated with the Tivoli Specific Plan project. The Setting discussion describes the background sound levels and presents a summary of the project’s acoustical criteria. The impact analysis section compares noise from the proposed project to the surrounding land uses and impinging noise. Mitigation measures are specified where necessary. Further discussion of noise impacts is presented in the near-term wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING NOISE FUNDAMENTALS Three dimensions of environmental noise are important in determining subjective response: The intensity or level of the sound; The frequency spectrum of the sound; The time-varying character of the sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in a logarithmic scale with the unit of decibels (dB), with 0 dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing. The logarithmic decibel scale allows an extremely wide range of acoustic energy to be characterized in a manageable numeric notation. For example, a doubling of noise energy is correlated to a 3 decibel (dB) increase in noise levels. The “frequency” of a sound refers to the number of complete pressure fluctuations per second in the sound. The unit of measurement is the cycle per second (cps) or hertz (Hz). Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency but of a broad band of frequencies, differing in level. The name of the frequency and level content of a sound is its “sound spectrum.” A sound spectrum for engineering purposes is typically described in terms of octave bands, which separate the audible frequency range (for human beings, from about 20 to 20,000 Hz) into ten segments. There are many rating methods to compare sounds with different spectra. The simplest method correlates with human response practically as well as the more complex methods. This method consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that progressively de-emphasizes the importance of frequency components below 1000 Hz and above 5000 Hz. This frequency weighting reflects the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and at extreme high frequencies relative to the mid-range. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The weighting system described above is called “A”-weighting, and the level so measured is called the “A-weighted sound level” or “A-weighted noise level.” The unit of A-weighted sound level is sometimes abbreviated “dBA.” In practice, the sound level is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting characteristic. All U.S. and international standard sound level meters include such a filter. Typical sound levels found in the environment and in industry include a jet takeoff (at a distance of 200 feet), 120 dBA; a piledriver (at a distance of 50 feet), 100 dBA; an off-highway vehicle (at a distance of 50 feet), 80 dBA; speech (at a distance of one foot), 55 dBA; typical minimum nighttime levels in residential areas, 35 dBA; and a soft whisper (at a distance of five feet), 25 dBA. Although a single sound level value may adequately describe environmental noise at any instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise is a conglomeration of distant noise sources, which results in a relatively steady background noise having no identifiable source. These distant sources may include traffic, wind in trees, industrial activities, etc. and are relatively constant from moment to moment. As natural forces change or as human activity follows its daily cycle, the sound level may vary slowly from hour to hour. Superimposed on this slowly varying background is a succession of identifiable noisy events of brief duration. These may include nearby activities such as single vehicle pass-bys, aircraft flyovers, etc. which cause the environmental noise level to vary from instant to instant. To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise, statistical noise descriptors were developed. “L10” is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 10 percent of a stated time period. The L10 is considered a good measure of the maximum sound levels caused by discrete noise events. “L50” is the A-weighted sound level that is equaled or exceeded 50 percent of a stated time period; it represents the median sound level. The “L90” is the A-weighted sound level equaled or exceeded during 90 percent of a stated time period and is used to describe the background noise. As it is often cumbersome to quantify the noise environment with a set of statistical descriptors, a single number called the average sound level or “Leq” is now widely used. The term “Leq” originated from the concept of a so-called equivalent sound level which contains the same acoustical energy as a varying sound level during the same time period. In simple but accurate technical language, the Leq is the average A-weighted sound level in a stated time period. The Leq is particularly useful in describing the subjective change in an environment where the source of noise remains the same but there is change in the level of activity. Widening roads and/or increasing traffic are examples of this kind of situation. In determining the daily measure of environmental noise, it is important to account for the different response of people to daytime and nighttime noise. During the nighttime, exterior ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 background noise levels are generally lower than in the daytime; however, most household noise also decreases at night, thus exterior noise intrusions become noticeable. Further, most people trying to sleep at night are more sensitive to noise. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a special descriptor was developed. The descriptor is called the Ldn (Day/Night Average Sound Level), which represents the 24-hour average sound level with a penalty for noise occurring at night. The Ldn computation divides the 24-hour day into two periods: daytime (7:00 am to 10:00 pm); and nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). The nighttime sound levels are assigned a 10 dB penalty prior to averaging with daytime hourly sound levels. Similar to Ldn is a descriptor referred to as CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level). The CNEL is computed in much the same fashion as Ldn with the addition of a 5 dB penalty during evening hours (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 Typically, this additional penalty results in an increase of less than 1 dB when compared to the Ldn. As discussed in further detail below, except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only 1 dB in sound level cannot be perceived. For highway noise environments, the average noise level during the peak hour traffic volume is approximately equal to the Ldn. The effects of noise on people can be listed in three general categories: Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction; Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; Physiological effects such as startle and hearing loss. The sound levels associated with environmental noise usually produce effects only in the first two categories. There has never been a completely predictable measure for the subjective effects of noise nor of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and habituation to noise over time. Thus, an important factor in assessing subjective reactions is to compare the new noise environment to the existing noise environment. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the existing noise levels, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged. Noise levels diminish (or attenuate) as distance from the source increases based on an inverse square rule, depending on how the noise source is physically configured. Sound from a point source, such as a single piece of construction equipment, attenuates at a rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance. Ideally, heavily traveled roads with few gaps in traffic behave as continuous line sources and attenuate roughly 3 dB per doubling of distance. However, in reality, traffic sources are not infinitely long and do contain gaps between vehicles. Studies show that in practice, an attenuation rate of 4.5 dB per doubling is typical. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 With regard to increases in noise level, knowledge of the following relationships will be helpful in understanding the quantitative sections of this report: Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of only 1 dB in sound level cannot be perceived. Outside of the laboratory, a 3 dB change is considered a just-noticeable difference. A change in level of at least 5 dB is required before any noticeable change in community response would be expected. A 10 dB change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and would almost certainly cause an adverse community response. EXISTING NOISE CONDITIONS The existing noise environment at and adjacent to the project site generally comprises transportation on adjacent local roadways; agriculture, commercial, and residential land uses; operations related to the Northeast Modesto Police command office; and a few stationary commercial rooftop mechanical equipment) sources. Roadways on the site boundary generate noise from rural or suburban traffic accessing the urban portion of Modesto, or State Highway 99 (SR 99) approximately 6 miles south and west of the site. Sylvan Avenue and Oakdale Road, including their respective intersection at the southwest corner of the project site, are designated as truck routes, but not at locations along the project site border. Boundary roads may have occasionally fast-moving traffic, but they are not heavily traveled at night, causing only moderate daily levels of existing noise. Claratina Avenue does not currently exist north of the project site. Specific existing noise levels for roadway segments surrounding the project site are not included in the City’s General Plan or the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan1 (MEIR). However, based on the traffic study prepared for the project2, a range of existing noise levels, with respective distances from the centerline of the roadways, is shown in Table IV.F.1. 1 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, March 2003. 2 Dowling Associates, Inc., Traffic Impact Assessment for the Tivoli Specific Plan EIR, February 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.F.1: Existing Traffic Noise Levels and Contours (Ldn) Distance to Ldn Contour from Centerline (feet) Road Segment Ldn at 100-feet from Centerline (dB) 75 Ldn 70 Ldn 65 Ldn 60 Ldn Sylvan Avenue* 62 to 64 14 to 19 29 to 41 63 to 88 136 to 189 Oakdale Avenue* 62 to 63 14 to 16 31 to 34 66 to 73 142 to 156 Roselle Avenue 59 8 18 39 84 * A range indicates that existing traffic levels were analyzed for more than one intersection along the road segment. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad runs along the western edge of Terminal Avenue, approximately ¾ mile north and east of the site. Trains carry freight and passengers. Typical noise associated with rail operations includes wheel-track noise, engine noise, and horns sounding near at-grade crossings. However, due to the distance of the BNSF from the project site, noise associated with railroad operations would not contribute significantly to the site. The Modesto City-County Airport (Harry Sham Field), the nearest public airport, is located over six miles from the site. As stated in the Tivoli Specific Plan Project Initial Study, Appendix A, pp. 30-31, the project would not expose people residing or working on the project site to excessive noise from aircraft. Ongoing agricultural operations on properties surrounding the project site occur periodically and seasonally, and they vary depending on how the land is used. For any of the agricultural properties, farming equipment, pumps, or trucks may occasionally cause elevated noise levels. Noise Sensitive Areas Some activities and land uses are more sensitive to noise than others. The City’s Urban Area General Plan identifies the various types of land uses that are considered noise-sensitive. These include residences, hospitals, parks, churches, schools, and agricultural land uses. The project itself would also introduce the presence of noise sensitive receptors to the site. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Under the Noise Control Act of 1972, the U.S. EPA is responsible for developing regulations that adequately control environmental noise such that it does not endanger the population's health and welfare. The EPA established the Office of Noise Abatement and Control, but funding for the office was removed in 1981. Similarly, the California Department of Health Services (DHS) once operated an Office of Noise Control that has since been disbanded. As such, environmental noise protection is mainly a local government responsibility. The City of Modesto would be responsible for noise regulations and monitoring in the project area. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research The State Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) encourages each local jurisdiction to use its guidelines (based on guidelines developed by the DHS before its Office of Noise Control was closed) for evaluating the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure.3 The guidelines indicate that no special noise insulation is necessary for residential land uses in areas where exterior ambient noise levels do not exceed an Ldn of approximately 60 dB. If a residential area experiences an Ldn between 60 dB and 70 dB, the noise would be conditionally acceptable, assuming that conventional construction of the homes provides some level of noise insulation. On the other hand, residential uses should generally be discouraged in areas where noise levels are above an Ldn of 70 dB. The City of Modesto has adopted similar, but more stringent, land use compatibility guidelines in the Urban Area General Plan. State of California, Noise Insulation Standards The State of California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24, Part 2, California Code of Regulations) requires that the interior noise level in a multi-family residential dwelling unit due to exterior noise not exceed an Ldn of 45 dB. Units requiring windows to be closed to achieve the interior noise standard will also need an alternative method of providing fresh air in accordance with the State Building Code (UBC Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208A.8.5 Compliance). This ventilation system must not compromise the noise reduction of the exterior façade. Appendix Chapter 12, Section 1208 also has requirements for sound insulation between units in a multi- family building. County of Stanislaus, Noise Element Standards The City of Modesto does not have specific standards for maximum allowable exterior noise levels. However, the MEIR includes a summary of the County of Stanislaus Noise Element Standards Table V-3-4, p. V-3-9, that indicates the maximum allowable exterior noise levels for daytime and nighttime hours. In addition, the maximum allowable noise exposure from stationary noise sources is given in terms of hourly Leq and maximum level at any time. The specific noise levels are shown in Table IV.F.2. 3 State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines, Appendix A: Noise Element Guidelines, November 1998. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.F.2: County of Stanislaus Noise Element Standards Noise Level Performance Standards Exterior Noise Level Standards Cumulative number of minutes in any one-hour time period (dBA) Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Nighttime (Leq) (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 30 50 45 15 55 50 5 60 55 1 65 60 0 70 65 Note: Each of the noise level standards shall be reduced by five dBA for pure tone noises, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noises. The standards should be applied at a residential or other noise-sensitive land use and not on the property of a noise-generating land use. Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure from Stationary Noise Sources* Daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) Hourly Leq 50 45 Maximum Level 70 65 * As determined at the property line of the receiving land use. When determining the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures. The County’s Noise Element (as stated in the MEIR) presents the following policies applicable to the proposed project that limit noise levels for new development of noise sensitive land uses in noise-impacted areas: N-1: Development within these noise impacted areas must have effective mitigation measures incorporated into the project design to reduce noise levels to below 60 dBA Ldn/CNEL or less in outdoor activity areas and 45 dBA Ldn/CNEL or less within interior living spaces or other noise-sensitive interior spaces for noise resulting from traffic, railroads, and airports. N-2: Effective mitigation measures must be incorporated into the project design to reduce noise levels to below 60 dBA Ldn/CNEL or less within interior living spaces or other noise sensitive interior spaces resulting from local industries or other stationary noise sources. Additionally, the guidelines in Table V-3-4 [the table directly above] must be met. N-3: The County’s noise element further states that new development of commercial, industrial, or other noise generation land uses will not be permitted if resulting noise levels from the project will exceed 60 dBA Ldn/CNEL in noise-sensitive areas. City of Modesto, Municipal Code Generally the Modesto Municipal Code prohibits any noise that can be deemed “loud and raucous.” Determining what noises are “loud and raucous” depends on a number of factors such as whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual, when the noise occurs, and whether it is recurrent, intermittent, or constant (section 4-9.102). It specifically prohibits loud noise from the exhaust of stationary internal combustion engines (section 4-9.103(a)). ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Noises related to “sirens, horns, and bells on police, fire, and other emergency response vehicles” (section 4-9.104(b)), locomotives, railroad equipment, and aircraft (section 4-9.104(f)), and collection of solid waste (section 4-9.104(g)) are specifically exempt and not constrained by the noise ordinance. Section 10-2.1207(c2 and e) – Standards for Zoning Regulations for Highway Commercial Zone (C-3) presents the following guidelines to determine appropriate conditions to apply to any conditional use permit or plot plan approval: Whenever the side or rear of a lot is adjacent to property zoned for or developed with residential uses, compatibility between uses shall be maintained. Conditions on setbacks, landscaping, building height, noise baffling or similar measures may be utilized to maintain compatibility. Such side or rear yard shall be a minimum of forty (40) feet. Screening. A solid decorative masonry wall eight feet in height shall be constructed along the boundary separating C-3 commercial uses from adjoining residential or agricultural uses or zones. On the C-3 side of the wall a minimum ten (10) foot planting strip with screen landscaping shall be required. Along a side street boundary, the wall shall be at the side street setback line. City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan Policies The City of Modesto strives to coordinate development projects in a way to reduce noise pollution. The Noise Mitigation Policies of the Urban Area General Plan (amended March 4, 2003) and its MEIR apply within the planned urbanizing area, which includes the project site.4, 5 The compatibility of land uses with their noise surroundings is a primary focus of the plan. Generally, the policies recommend that the City conduct detailed study of potential noise impacts if a project would cause single-family residences or schools to be exposed to noise levels greater than an Ldn of 60 dB, multi-family residences to be exposed to noise levels greater than an Ldn of 65 dB, parks and commercial land uses to be exposed to noise levels greater than an Ldn of 70 dB, and agricultural land uses to be exposed to noise levels greater than an Ldn of 75 dB. The City requires acoustical analysis if single-family residential uses are within the 65 dB Ldn noise contour identified in the General Plan. The methods of mitigation involve incorporating setbacks or barriers for noise insulation or orienting non-sensitive uses between the source and more sensitive uses (Mitigation Measures N-7, N-9, N-10, and N-11 of the MEIR). Standards for community noise exposure for land use categories relevant to the project are shown in Table IV.F.3 (Table V-3-3 of the MEIR). 4 City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan, March 4, 2003. 5 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, March 2003. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.F.3: State Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise Environment Community Noise Exposure – Ldn or CNEL (dB) Land Use Category Normally Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Single-Family Residential Less than 60 55 to 70 70 to 75 Greater than 75 Multi-Family Residential Less than 65 60 to 70 70 to 75 Greater than 75 Schools Less than 60 60 to 70 70 to 80 Greater than 80 Neighborhood Parks Less than 70 67 to 75 Greater than 72 Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional Less than 70 67 to 77 Greater than 75 Agriculture Less than 75 70 to 80 Greater than 75 Normally Acceptable Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Normally Unacceptable New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable New construction or development generally should not be undertaken. Other relevant Noise Mitigation Policies include the following: Policy VII-G.3.d: The City of Modesto shall use the most recent noise contour map to implement the requirements of Noise Insulation Standards contained in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. (Title 24 applies to multi-family housing, not single- family.) Title 24 also specifies minimum values for the sound insulation afforded by interior partitions separating different dwelling units from each other and from interior common space. PROPOSED TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS If approved, the following proposed Tivoli Specific Plan noise-related guidelines would be incorporated in the project’s design: Tivoli Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Standards 5.2.1.2 – Low Density Residential-Lot Layout and Design-Alleys: Alleys are encouraged to eliminate the visual impact of the garage door and driveway apron on the streetscape. Alleys also eliminate driveway access conflicts on streets particularly with higher traffic volumes or speeds. The frontage of homes oriented to the streets with access to alleys are desired but will not work in locations where noise mitigating sound walls are required. Alleys also should be used wherever visitor parking is in high demand in order to minimize driveway curb cuts and maximize the amount of on-street parking. 5.4.1.1 – General and Neighborhood Commercial and Professional-Office-Site-Layout - Service Area and Equipment Screening: Loading docks, truck parking, outdoor storage, trash collection, trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of the building and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. Screening materials shall be the same as, or of equal quality to, the materials used for primary building and landscaping. 5.4.4 – General and Neighborhood Commercial and Professional Office-Fencing Guidelines and Standards: The height of a wall shall be eight feet next to residential uses unless noise impact mitigation requires a greater height. 5.5.2.1 – Regional Serving Commercial - Site Layout: Minimize or eliminate conflicts of noise, light and visual intrusion whenever possible. Loading docks, trash enclosures and/or compactors need to be visually and acoustically screened from adjacent residential uses. Also controlling the hours of delivery can play a significant role in reducing potential intrusion of the RSC into the residential neighborhoods. 5.5.2.1 – Regional Serving Commercial - Central Features: Outdoor dining areas are encouraged and, when part of the development program, should be used to activate plazas, the edges of park or open space, building frontages and street frontages. Outdoor dining areas should be oriented away from off-site uses that are sensitive to noise or nighttime activity. 5.7.1.2 – Community Walls Along Arterial Streets: Along arterial streets, a minimum eight feet high solid decorative masonry wall shall be provided for residential lots backing up to the street. A decorative view wall may be allowed for attached multiple family projects where the recreation area is adequately buffered. There shall be a two feet horizontal offset in the wall every 100 feet or two lots. 5.7.2 – Standard Masonry Walls: A minimum eight-foot high wall shall be provided when residential use is next to the commercial sites. A minimum seven-foot high wall shall be provided when residential use is next to the school site and central neighborhood park site. A decorative wall shall be provided where it is visible from the street or to the general public. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The project would have a significant environmental effect if it would: Result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. Create a permanent increase in ambient noise that causes the exterior noise level to exceed the General Plan standard of 60 dB Ldn in residential areas. Create a permanent increase of more than 3 dB if ambient exterior noise levels in residential areas already exceed the City of Modesto’s 60 dB Ldn standard. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Cause a permanent increase in the interior noise level that causes an exceedance of 45 dB Ldn. For the purposes of this analysis, a significant effect is considered to be either of the following: An exceedance of the interior 45 dB Ldn noise standard, or the 60 dB Ldn exterior noise standard. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The major categories of noise sources that must be analyzed are transportation and traffic-related noise, and noise from stationary or operational sources associated with commercial land uses. The major categories of noise sensitive receptors that must be analyzed are single-family and multi-family residential, commercial and professional, educational (elementary school), recreational (neighborhood park), and agricultural land uses. The compatibility of existing and future sensitive noise receptors with project-related and cumulative development is addressed by reviewing traffic noise and other project-related noise. The change in noise levels that would be caused by traffic is quantified, based on the Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model FHWA-RD-77-108. The model uses traffic volume, vehicle speed, truck percentage, distance to receiver, and a presumed attenuation rate to estimate the Leq at a specified setback distance. For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed, as in the MEIR, that vehicle noise attenuates at a rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance, and that the Ldn is equal to the peak hour Leq. Significant noise increases are defined to be those that would cause the exterior Ldn to exceed 60 dB, more than a 3 dB increase above the existing noise level when the exterior Ldn is above 60 dB, or an exceedance of the interior Ldn 45 dB noise standard. If significant noise increases would occur at residences already exposed to unacceptable noise levels, then the analysis identifies measures to reduce the project-related noise. If future-plus-project noise levels would be incompatible with surrounding land uses anticipated with the project, then the analysis identifies features that could be incorporated with proposed development to reduce the impact. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact F.1. Increased project-related traffic could cause substantial noise increases for existing sensitive receptors in the project vicinity. (Less than Significant) Background growth in traffic volumes would result in increased noise levels regardless of whether or not the Tivoli Specific Plan is approved and the project area is developed. Traffic generated by the proposed project would contribute to these increased noise levels, resulting in a gradual change from the existing, rural noise environment to one that would seem more urban. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Existing residences in the project vicinity would experience gradually increased traffic noise with background growth, and additional increases in traffic noise as the project proceeds. The analysis of traffic-generated changes in noise levels summarizes the conditions anticipated for three future scenarios with the project, along with the related baseline conditions. The scenarios studied coincide with the traffic analysis. The noise analysis reflects transportation system, roadway segment, and local intersection improvements for analysis years 2012, 2017, and 2025. Locations in the vicinity of the project site may experience increases in ambient noise levels with increased traffic volumes due to future growth, but project-generated traffic would be a smaller proportion of the traffic volumes than at the locations analyzed. The future noise levels at existing intersections are presented in Table IV.F.4 (for 2012), Table IV.F.5 (for 2017), and Table IV.F.6 (for 2025). Tables IV.F.4, IV.F.5, and IV.F.6 show that baseline traffic growth would result in increased noise levels along the roadways studied. By 2025, baseline noise levels would reach or exceed 64 dB at 100 feet from the centerlines at all locations studied. Therefore, existing single-family homes along the analyzed roadways would experience future baseline noise levels greater than the City’s “Normally Acceptable” levels. With project-generated traffic, noise levels would increase by 2 dB or less compared to baseline noise levels in 2012, 2017 and 2025. For reference purposes, a change in the Ldn of 2 dB would not be considered noticeable and would not result in significant noise impacts on existing residences along the study roadways. Existing noise levels at 100 feet from the centerlines of Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue range from approximately 62 to 64 dB Ldn. Thus, any single-family residences located adjacent to the roadways already experience noise levels greater than the City’s “Normally Acceptable” threshold of an Ldn of 60 dB for single-family residential uses (see Table IV.F.3, p. IV.F.9), and exceed the County’s exterior noise policy, as stated in the City’s MEIR, of an Ldn of 60 dB at outdoor use areas such as backyards. Multi-family development located within 100 feet of the centerlines of these two roadways would not exceed the City’s “Normally Acceptable” threshold of an Ldn of 65 dB, but may exceed an Ldn of 60 dB at outdoor public areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.F.4: 2012 Future Traffic Noise Levels and Contours* for Future Baseline and Baseline Plus Project 2012 Baseline 2012 + Project 2012 Change with Project Mable Avenue/Oakdale Road Ldn at 100 feet 66 dB 67 dB -1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 24 feet 28 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 51 feet 59 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 109 feet 128 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 236 feet 275 feet Bridgewood Way/Oakdale Road Ldn at 100 feet 65 dB 66 dB 1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 23 feet 26 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 49 feet 55 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 105 feet 119 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 226 feet 256 feet Sylvan Avenue/Oakdale Road Ldn at 100 feet 66 dB 66 dB 0 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 24 feet 27 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 52 feet 58 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 112 feet 125 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 241 feet 270 feet Sylvan Avenue/Lydia Lane Ldn at 100 feet 64 dB 65 dB 1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 19 feet 21 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 42 feet 44 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 90 feet 96 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 195 feet 206 feet Sylvan Avenue/Wood Summit Drive Ldn at 100 feet 64 dB 64 dB 0 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 19 feet 20 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 40 feet 43 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 86 feet 92 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 185 feet 198 feet Sylvan Avenue/Aria Way Ldn at 100 feet 64 dB 64 dB 0 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 18 feet 20 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 39 feet 42 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 83 feet 91 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 179 feet 195 feet Sylvan Avenue/McReynolds Avenue Ldn at 100 feet 63 dB 64 dB 1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 17 feet 18 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 36 feet 39 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 79 feet 79 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 169 feet 169 feet (continued) ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.F.4: 2012 Future Traffic Noise Levels and Contours* for Future Baseline and Baseline Plus Project (continued) 2012 Baseline 2012 + Project 2012 Change with Project Sylvan Avenue/Roselle Avenue** Ldn at 100 feet 63 dB 63 dB 0 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 16 feet 16 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 34 feet 35 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 74 feet 76 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 159 feet 163 feet Sylvan Avenue/Roselle Avenue** Ldn at 100 feet 61 dB 62 dB 1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 12 feet 14 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 26 feet 30 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 57 feet 65 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 122 feet 140 feet Notes: * Distances refer to setback from centerline of roadway Bold lettering indicates roadway segment analyzed at listed intersection ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.15 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.F.5: 2017 Future Traffic Noise Levels and Contours* for Future Baseline and Baseline Plus Project 2017 Baseline 2017 + Project 2017 Change with Project Mable Avenue/Oakdale Road Ldn at 100 feet 67 dB 68 dB 1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 29 feet 32 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 63 feet 69 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 135 feet 148 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 291 feet 320 feet Bridgewood Way/Oakdale Road Ldn at 100 feet 67 dB 67 dB 0 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 28 feet 30 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 61 feet 65 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 131 feet 141 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 283 feet 303 feet Sylvan Avenue/Oakdale Road Ldn at 100 feet 67 dB 67 dB 0 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 29 feet 31 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 62 feet 66 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 133 feet 142 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 287 feet 306 feet Sylvan Avenue/Lydia Lane Ldn at 100 feet 65 dB 64 dB -1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 21 feet 20 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 46 feet 43 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 100 feet 93 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 215 feet 199 feet Sylvan Avenue/Wood Summit Drive Ldn at 100 feet 64 dB 64 dB 0 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 19 feet 20 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 42 feet 42 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 90 feet 91 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 194 feet 196 feet Sylvan Avenue/Aria Way Ldn at 100 feet 65 dB 64 dB -1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 20 feet 20 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 43 feet 42 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 94 feet 91 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 202 feet 197 feet Sylvan Avenue/McReynolds Avenue Ldn at 100 feet 64 dB 64 dB 0 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 19 feet 17 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 42 feet 37 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 90 feet 81 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 194 feet 174 feet (continued) ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.16 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.F.5: 2017 Future Traffic Noise Levels and Contours* for Future Baseline and Baseline Plus Project (continued) 2017 Baseline 2017 + Project 2017 Change with Project Sylvan Avenue/Roselle Avenue** Ldn at 100 feet 64 dB 63 dB -1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 19 feet 16 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 40 feet 34 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 86 feet 74 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 186 feet 160 feet Sylvan Avenue/Roselle Avenue** Ldn at 100 feet 62 dB 64 dB 2 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 15 feet 18 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 31 feet 40 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 67 feet 86 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 145 feet 185 feet Notes: * Distances refer to setback from centerline of roadway Bold lettering indicates roadway segment analyzed at listed intersection ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.17 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.F.6: 2025 Future Traffic Noise Levels and Contours* for Future Baseline and Baseline Plus Project 2025 Baseline 2025 + Project 2025 Change with Project Mable Avenue/Oakdale Road Ldn at 100 feet 69 dB 69 dB 0 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 37 feet 40 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 80 feet 85 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 172 feet 184 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 371 feet 396 feet Bridgewood Way/Oakdale Road Ldn at 100 feet 68 dB 69 dB 1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 36 feet 38 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 78 feet 82 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 169 feet 177 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 364 feet 382 feet Sylvan Avenue/Oakdale Road Ldn at 100 feet 68 dB 69 dB 1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 35 feet 37 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 76 feet 80 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 164 feet 172 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 353 feet 371 feet Sylvan Avenue/Lydia Lane Ldn at 100 feet 66 dB 65 dB -1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 25 feet 23 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 53 feet 50 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 114 feet 107 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 245 feet 230 feet Sylvan Avenue/Wood Summit Drive Ldn at 100 feet 66 dB 65 dB -1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 24 feet 23 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 53 feet 50 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 113 feet 108 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 244 feet 232 feet Sylvan Avenue/Aria Way Ldn at 100 feet 66 dB 65 dB -1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 24 feet 23 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 51 feet 50 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 110 feet 108 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 237 feet 232 feet (continued) ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.18 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.F.6: 2025 Future Traffic Noise Levels and Contours* for Future Baseline and Baseline Plus Project (continued) 2025 Baseline 2025 + Project 2025 Change with Project Sylvan Avenue/McReynolds Avenue Ldn at 100 feet 65 dB 65 dB 0 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 23 feet 21 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 50 feet 46 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 107 feet 99 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 231 feet 213 feet Sylvan Avenue/Roselle Avenue** Ldn at 100 feet 65 dB 65 dB 0 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 22 feet 20 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 48 feet 43 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 104 feet 93 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 224 feet 200 feet Sylvan Avenue/Roselle Avenue** Ldn at 100 feet 64 dB 65 dB 1 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 18 feet 21 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 39 feet 46 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 83 feet 100 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 179 feet 215 feet Notes: * Distances refer to setback from centerline of roadway Bold lettering indicates roadway segment analyzed at listed intersection Existing residences located within approximately 84 feet from the Roselle Avenue centerline are currently exposed to an Ldn exceeding 60 dB. Thus, any single-family residences located adjacent to the roadway already experience noise levels greater than the City’s “Normally Acceptable” threshold of an Ldn of 60 dB for single-family residential uses (see Table IV.F.3, p. IV.F.9), and exceed the County’s exterior noise policy, as stated in the City’s MEIR, of an Ldn of 60 dB at outdoor use areas such as backyards. Multi-family development located beyond 39-feet of the centerline would not exceed the City’s “Normally Acceptable” threshold of an Ldn of 65 dB, but may exceed the County’s exterior noise policy of an Ldn of 60 dB at outdoor public areas. Baseline traffic alone would cause noise levels to increase by more than 3 dB in 2012 or 2017 when compared to existing noise levels along portions of Roselle Avenue or Oakdale Road, respectively. This would be a noticeable change, although it would occur gradually; therefore, even without the project there would be a significant noise impact along Oakdale Road and Roselle Avenue. The three existing homes along Oakdale Road are expected to be removed to allow for commercial development. Therefore, these residences would be removed long before they would see a significant impact since an increased noise level of more than 3 dB would not occur until year 2017. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.19 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Noise levels of 75 dB Ldn, the Normally Acceptable criterion for agricultural areas, would not be exceeded at the edges of roadways adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the project would not cause significant noise impacts in nearby agricultural areas. Although the project would not result in significant, unacceptable noise increases for existing residences along roadways adjacent to the project site, noise levels would continue to exceed the 60 dB Ldn Normally Acceptable level for single-family residences. Mitigation Measure F.1. No mitigation necessary (see Cumulative Impacts for additional information). Impact F.2. Future traffic could cause substantial noise levels for sensitive receptors in the Tivoli Specific Plan area. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) New residences in the Tivoli Specific Plan constructed adjacent to major new arterials or widened and improved roadways would be exposed to traffic noise. Traffic noise levels were calculated for representative locations along Roselle Avenue and Claratina Avenue to determine whether future noise levels would be compatible with the proposed residential and neighborhood commercial uses. Table IV.F.7 shows future noise levels with project-generated traffic for these representative locations. Depending on the distance from roadway centerlines and shielding provided by intervening buildings, new residences and neighborhood commercial buildings would be exposed to future noise levels exceeding the City’s “Normally Acceptable” level of an Ldn of 60 dB for single- family land uses, 65 dB for multi-family land uses, and 70 dB for commercial land uses. Therefore, development proposed within noise contours that exceed the “Normally Acceptable” level would experience significant noise impacts without mitigation. No new residential development is proposed along Oakdale Road between Sylvan and Claratina Avenues as part of the Tivoli Specific Plan. As shown in Table IV.F.6, noise levels along Sylvan Avenue within 200 feet of the centerline of the roadway would be expected to exceed the “Normally Acceptable” 60 dB Ldn for residences within line-of-sight of the roadway, and development in these areas would also experience significant noise impacts without mitigation. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.20 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.F.7: Future Traffic Noise Levels and Contours for Future Baseline Plus Project 2012 + Project 2017 + Project 2025 + Project Tivoli C/Roselle Avenue Ldn at 100 feet 68 dB 69 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 33 feet 38 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 72 feet 82 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 155 feet 176 feet Distance to 60 Ldn Intersection not yet constructed by 2012 335 feet 380 feet Tivoli D/Roselle Avenue Ldn at 100 feet 66 dB 68 dB 68 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 25 feet 32 feet 36 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 54 feet 68 feet 77 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 116 feet 147 feet 165 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 249 feet 317 feet 356 feet Claratina Avenue/Tivoli A Ldn at 100 feet 65 dB 68 dB 68 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 23 feet 36 feet 36 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 49 feet 77 feet 77 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 106 feet 166 feet 166 feet Distance to 60 Ldn 227 feet 358 feet 358 feet Claratina Avenue/Tivoli B Ldn at 100 feet 67 dB 67 dB Distance to 75 Ldn 31 feet 31 feet Distance to 70 Ldn 67 feet 67 feet Distance to 65 Ldn 144 feet 144 feet Distance to 60 Ldn Intersection not yet constructed by 2012 310 feet 310 feet Source: Charles M. Salter Associates, April 2006 Land uses adjacent to collector roadways on the interior of the project site are not expected to be exposed to noise levels greater than an Ldn of 60 dB; therefore, additional mitigation is not likely required. In addition, due to setbacks and shielding from major roadways, the proposed school and park uses are not expected to be exposed to noise levels that exceed the “Normally Acceptable” level. Mitigation Measure F.2a. Design and implement new barriers for noise control at exterior locations of proposed residential development adjacent to major roadways. To meet the exterior noise goals for the proposed residential land uses, provide 8-foot-tall earthen berms or sound walls for residences adjacent to major roadways Sylvan Avenue, Roselle Avenue, and Claratina Avenue). These noise barriers will provide approximately 8 dB to 10 dB of noise reduction depending on location and will reduce exterior noise levels to approximately an Ldn of 60 dB at the residential property lines with respect to 2025 plus project conditions. Since noise barriers typically provide noise reduction for receivers at a first-story height, façades at higher elevations adjacent to major roadways may be exposed to noise levels that require sound ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.21 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 rated windows to meet Building Code requirements. With the additional sound insulation, interior noise levels would achieve the applicable standards of an Ldn less than 45 dB. Mitigation Measure F.2b. Provide shielding for outdoor use areas by locating these areas behind buildings adjacent to major roadways. This measure shall be applied where outdoor use is a major consideration, such as backyards in single-family housing developments and recreation areas in multi-family developments. This standard should not be applied to outdoor areas such as small decks and balconies typically associated with multi-family residential developments where a designated public outdoor use area is also provided. If balconies or decks are intended to be primary outdoor use areas in multi- family developments, they should be oriented so that they do not have direct line-of-sight to major roadways. Impact F.3. New stationary sources of noise associated with the proposed project could generate noise levels incompatible with ordinances or goals for the surroundings. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Future stationary sources of noise would include mechanical equipment for commercial buildings and possibly multi-family building ventilation and cooling equipment. The new stationary sources would have the potential to cause noise that would violate the standards set forth in the County’s Noise Element as stated in the City’s MEIR or be incompatible with the surrounding uses. The use of emergency generators at some commercial land uses would generate mechanical noise that would be subject to control through the City’s noise ordinance and the County’s Noise Element as stated in the City’s MEIR (Table V-3-4). Generators are typically only used for emergency purposes and occasional testing (about once per month). Because of the infrequency of this use, generators would not result in significant noise impacts, although testing would be noticeable to nearby residents. Noise levels can vary greatly for components of stationary mechanical equipment. Examples include mechanical equipment for building heating, ventilation and cooling, and refrigeration equipment on commercial buildings in the proposed Regional Shopping Centers. As specific building locations in the shopping centers have not been established, and specific equipment has not been identified, noise impacts cannot be quantified. Noise from these sources could be incompatible with the residential uses planned to be developed adjacent to these shopping areas. If the City Municipal Code sections related to Highway Commercial Zone standards calling for screening along the boundary separating these commercial uses from adjoining residential or agricultural uses were applied to the Regional Shopping Center locations, mechanical noise might ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.22 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 be reduced to acceptable levels at residential buildings, depending on the distances between the mechanical equipment and the residences and the types and heights of screening included. Tivoli Specific Plan Design Guidelines include provisions that would help to reduce the potential effect of mechanical equipment. These provisions include Sections 5.4.1.1 – General and Neighborhood Commercial and Professional-Office-Site-Layout – Service Area and Equipment Screening, and 5.4.4 – General and Neighborhood Commercial and Professional Office-Fencing Guidelines. Section 5.4.1.1 calls for General Neighborhood Commercial and Professional- Office-Site-Layout – Service Area and Equipment Screening, and Section 5.4.4 limits the maximum height of a fence or wall unless noise mitigation requires greater heights. Because there is not sufficient information available about the orientation of proposed commercial buildings, their distances from residential uses, and the types of mechanical equipment proposed to be used on commercial and multi-family residential buildings, it is assumed that noise from mechanical equipment could result in a significant environmental impact. Mitigation Measure F.3. Each development project that involves commercial uses or multi-family residential buildings that would include outdoor mechanical equipment shall carry out the following: Retain a qualified acoustical engineer to review the development project during the design phase, prior to approval of building permits. Submit a report to the City by the acoustical engineer that calculates the noise levels at the nearest residential property lines that would result from proposed mechanical equipment, determines whether noise levels would exceed the City’s Normally Acceptable standards, and identifies means to reduce exterior noise levels to an Ldn of 60 dB. Noise reduction measures that must be considered by the acoustical engineer include: - use of acoustical silencers on inlet and discharge openings of mechanical equipment, - installation of parapets or enclosures with louvers or other barriers to shield noise, - orientation of equipment so that it faces away from sensitive receptors, - orientation or setback of buildings to increase distance from sensitive receptors. Other noise reduction measures that would accomplish the same or similar purposes should be included if applicable to the particular building proposed. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.23 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact F.4. Non-stationary sources of noise associated with the proposed project could generate noise levels incompatible with ordinance or goals for the surroundings. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Other sources of noise not attributable to roadway traffic or mechanical equipment include the following: Commercial Uses: Delivery vehicle and loading dock operations, trash collection, parking lot vehicle noise; Elementary School: Children arriving and departing from classes, recess and lunchtime outdoor activities, after school and weekend programs; Park: Typical park activities such as sporting events, possible amplified music, and scheduled festivities; Infrastructure: Solid waste clean-up, general landscaping, power transformers, water pump stations; Rail operations: Train horn noise, groundborne vibration; Adjacent agriculture: Farming equipment, pumps, trucks, etc. While it is difficult to predict noise levels associated with the above sources of noise, general planning measures can be implemented to avoid noise intrusion on sensitive land uses. Although not attributable to a specific source of noise, the State of California Noise Insulation Standards contain criteria for sound insulation between multi-family dwelling units. Compliance with these requirements would reduce sound transmission impacts in multi-family buildings to less-than-significant levels. The zoning regulation standards Section 10-2.1207(c2 and e) specify buffer distances for C-36 commercial land uses adjacent to residential land uses. Incorporating the minimum 40-foot side or rear yard that includes a minimum 10-foot planting strip with screen landscaping on the Commercial land use side, and 8-foot noise barrier would reduce the noise associated with delivery and loading dock operations. As stated in the Tivoli Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Standards, “loading docks, trash enclosures and/or compactors need to be visually and acoustically screened from adjacent residential uses. Also controlling the hours of delivery can play a significant role in reducing potential intrusion of the RSC into the residential neighborhoods.” Thus, the Tivoli Specific Plan includes general provisions to reduce noise impacts on residential uses from adjacent commercial buildings. However, due to the potentially 6 The Tivoli Specific Plan – Land Use Designations indicate the incorporation of Regional-Serving Commercial (RSC) land uses. Per discussion with Paul Liu, Associate Planner for the City of Modesto, the corresponding zoning district for RSC land uses within the zoning ordinance is C-3. Therefore, C-3 zoning regulations are being applied to RSC land uses within the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.24 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 high levels of noise associated with loading dock operations in conjunction with diesel truck noise, it may not be possible to reduce noise levels at residential receivers to meet exterior noise standards without additional mitigation. For example, noise barrier heights may need to be increased above 8 feet, forklift operations may need to be conducted inside a warehouse with doors closed, and truck engines may need to be shut off during loading and unloading. Once locations and orientations of loading docks have been specified, a qualified acoustical consultant should be retained to assess the resulting noise levels at residential receivers. Parking areas for commercial uses should be positioned as far as is feasible from residential receivers, incorporate landscape buffers, and potentially include noise barriers. A qualified acoustical engineer should be retained to review site plans for commercial uses located near sensitive land uses. School activities are typically conducted during daytime hours and are therefore not expected to generate a significant noise impact. In addition, residential land uses are positioned across interior collector roadways that will act as noise buffers attenuating sound over the additional distance. Scheduled outdoor school events with amplified music or speech that are expected to generate substantially increased noise levels may be controlled to “Daytime” noise levels and times as defined in the County’s Noise Element as stated in the City’s MEIR. Amplified music considered “loud and raucous” is covered by the noise provisions in City’s Municipal Code. Park activities are typically conducted during daytime hours and are therefore not expected to generate a significant noise impact. In addition, residential land uses are positioned across interior collector roadways from the park, attenuating sound over the additional distance. Scheduled outdoor park events with amplified music or speech that are expected to generate substantially increased noise levels may be controlled to “Daytime” noise levels and times as defined in the County’s noise element as stated in the City’s MEIR. Amplified music considered “loud and raucous” is covered by the City’s municipal code. The public infrastructure components of the project may include noise sources including power transformers and mechanical equipment such as pumps. Although such equipment does not typically generate significant noise levels, it may pose a nuisance to residents at the adjacent single-family development, particularly during low ambient noise level nighttime hours. Noise reduction, if desired, can be easily implemented with the incorporation of sound enclosures and local noise barriers. Facilities maintenance is typically conducted during daytime hours and is not expected to create a significant noise impact. Collection of solid waste is specifically exempted from the noise ordinance. With respect to general landscaping the City’s noise ordinance states that any tool or piece of equipment powered by an internal-combustion engine such as, but not limited to, chain saw, backpack blower, and ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.25 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 lawn mower is specifically regulated and prohibited before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. daily (except Saturday and Sunday and state or federal holidays, when the prohibited times are before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 Therefore, there would be no significant impact if these activities are limited to the mentioned times above, and noise levels meet the County’s noise element exterior noise level standards as stated in the City’s MEIR. Since the railway is located approximately ¾ mile from the eastern edge of the project site, significant noise impacts are not expected. The Federal Railroad Administration regulates the use of railroad horns at at-grade crossings and railroad horn noise is specifically exempted from local noise ordinances. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) specifies a noise screening distance for commuter rail mainline operations of 750 feet from unobstructed residential land uses. The FTA also specifies a vibration screening distance for rapid rail transit and conventional commuter railroad operations of 200 feet from residential land uses and 120 feet from institutional land uses including schools and quiet offices.7 All uses in the Tivoli Specific Plan area would be more than twice the distances from the rail line. Therefore, noise and groundborne vibration levels from use of the railroad would not be significant. Agricultural land uses at adjacent properties not within the project site may generate noise associated with farming activities. Such activities could include the use of farming-related mechanical equipment tractors, pumps, trucks, etc.). Most farming activities occur during daytime hours and therefore are not expected to generate significant noise impacts on surrounding land uses at the project site. Noise levels and hours of operation are subject to the City’s noise ordinance. Mitigation Measure F.4. A qualified acoustical engineer shall be retained to review the site plans and building designs for proposed commercial activities when located adjacent to sensitive residential or educational land uses. The acoustical engineer shall consider the following measures, and shall identify a complete list of measures that will reduce noise levels at the nearest residential property line to an Ldn of 60 dB: Limiting loading and exterior warehouse activities to daytime hours from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Requiring loading and trash compacting and collection activities to be fully enclosed. Establishing minimum setback distances from rear yards for single family residences and from common open space for multi-family residential buildings for locations of 7 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, April 1995. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation F. Noise Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.F.26 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 commercial loading docks, warehousing activity areas, and trash compaction and collection areas in commercial developments. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact F.5. Cumulative development could lead to noise conflicts between incompatible land uses. (Exterior Noise: Significant and Unavoidable, Interior Noise: Significant and Unavoidable) The proposed project would be part of other development anticipated under the Urban Area General Plan. As discussed in Impacts F.1 and F.2, an increase in traffic noise levels is expected to occur regardless of the proposed project. The cumulative baseline therefore includes noise levels that would seem more urban compared to the existing, rural, noise environment. Future baseline conditions would cause some existing sensitive receptors along Roselle Avenue to experience significant and unacceptable noise from traffic. It is important to note that although project-related traffic noise would contribute to and increase cumulative future interior and exterior noise environments, it would be by a less-than-significant level. To reduce 2025 cumulative exterior noise levels to an Ldn not exceeding 60 dB would require both the construction of earthen berms or sound walls at least 8-feet tall adjacent to existing noise sensitive receivers along Roselle Avenue, and reorienting the respective driveways to face interior streets branching off Roselle Avenue. Such mitigation would require the installation of noise barriers on private property and would not be considered feasible. Therefore this exterior noise impact is significant and unavoidable. Interior noise levels must still meet the interior noise standard of not exceeding an Ldn of 45 dB. To reduce 2025 cumulative interior noise levels to an Ldn not exceeding 45 dB would require the installation of sound-rated window and exterior door assemblies along Roselle Avenue. Such mitigation would require installation on private property, which would not be considered feasible. Therefore, this interior noise impact is significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation available. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.G.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 G. HAZARDS The Initial Study checklist found that the project would not create a significant hazard to the public through the routine transport and use of hazardous materials; would not release hazardous materials into the environment; would not emit hazardous emissions or waste within the vicinity of an existing or proposed school; would not be located within an airport use plan or within the vicinity of an airstrip; would not impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan; and would not expose people or structures to risk involving fires. Therefore, further discussion of these topics in the EIR is unnecessary (Appendix A, pp. 23-25). This section of the EIR focuses on the effects related to hazardous materials that may be found on the project site, identifies potential impacts to the public and environment, and presents mitigation measures, as appropriate. This section describes the regulatory framework and Modesto and Stanislaus County General Plan policies for hazardous materials discovery and waste disposal, including requirements for management of hazardous building materials. Further discussion of hazards impacts is presented in the near-term wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING The project site is comprised of 86 parcels totaling 454 acres of property adjacent to the northeast border of the City of Modesto, in an unincorporated area of Stanislaus County. Existing land uses on the project site are agriculture, single-family residences, and some commercial/office space. Some of the project site is currently in agricultural production (orchards and row crops), with numerous farmhouses and outbuildings. Other portions are fallow. Some commercial/office buildings and a church are also present. Formerly, farms commonly had their own tanks for fuel and chemicals. Dry wells were often used for liquid waste disposal. On-site trash disposal was also common on farms. Based on these common farm practices, the agricultural land of the project site could contain a variety of contaminants, including pesticides, herbicides, petroleum hydrocarbons, semi-volatile organic compounds, volatile organic compounds, and heavy metals. Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) are used to identify visible evidence of use, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous materials; visible evidence of a release of hazardous materials; and regulatory records of contaminated sites, either on, or in proximity to, the subject property. Phase I ESAs have been prepared for nine of the parcels, representing 223 acres, or about half of the project site. None of the ESAs conducted to date have identified any evidence of aboveground or underground storage tanks. Trash piles were observed on two of the parcels. All of the parcels have domestic wells and septic tanks. None of the parcels have pits, ponds, or ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation G. Hazards Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.G.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 lagoons. None of the parcels include contaminated sites included on the list of hazardous materials sites (Cortese List) compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.1 All of the parcels have one or more structures that could contain asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM) and lead-based paint. All of the parcels are, or were previously, used for agricultural production. Two of the ESAs2,3 recommend sampling and analysis of soils for residual agricultural chemicals if the property is to be converted to residential use. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials,4 including management of contaminated soils and groundwater, are regulated by numerous local, state, and federal laws and regulations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) administers hazardous materials and hazardous waste regulations. The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Administration, regulates worker safety. State agencies include the California EPA (Cal/EPA), which includes the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources (SCDER) has jurisdiction on the local level. Transportation of hazardous waste is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. EPA, the California Highway Patrol (CHP), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Each agency’s jurisdiction and involvement in the management of hazardous materials and wastes are described below. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. The federal regulations are primarily codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). The legislation is outlined in the Resource Conservation 1 Department of Toxic Substances Control, website http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/database/Calsites/Cortese_List.cfm, accessed December 2005. 2 Phase One Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Baccus Vineyards, APN 083-03-05, Stanislaus County, California, 95357, March 2005. 3 Phase One Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for APN 083-03-04, Stanislaus County, California, 95357, March 2005. 4 The California Health and Safety Code defines a hazardous material as “...any material that, because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or to the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, radioactive materials, and any material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing that it would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.” (California Health and Safety Code Section 25501) ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation G. Hazards Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.G.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Acts of 1986 (SARA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The U.S. EPA provides oversight for site investigation and remediation projects, and has developed land disposal restrictions and treatment standards for the disposal of certain hazardous wastes. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has generated regulations regarding training workers involved in asbestos removal, transportation, and disposal. OSHA has also generated regulations regarding training workers involved in hazardous waste site investigation and cleanup, hazardous materials handling, and hazardous waste transport and disposal. Department of Toxic Substances Control The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is authorized by U.S. EPA to enforce and implement federal hazardous materials laws and regulations. California regulations pertaining to hazardous materials equal or exceed the federal regulations. Most state hazardous materials regulations are contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The DTSC generally acts as the lead agency for soil and groundwater cleanup projects, and establishes cleanup levels for subsurface contamination that are equal to, or more restrictive than, federal levels. The DTSC has developed land disposal restrictions and treatment standards for hazardous waste disposal in California. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board The enforces the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act of 1969 for protection of the waters of the state. The can act as lead agency to provide oversight for sites where the quality of groundwater or surface waters is threatened, and has the authority to require investigations and remedial actions. San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) is responsible for issuing permits for activities that include asbestos demolition/renovation activities. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation G. Hazards Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.G.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources The primary agency for local enforcement of state and federal laws controlling hazardous materials management is the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources (SCDER). SCDER is a Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), the local agency responsible for coordinating hazardous waste generator programs, overseeing underground and aboveground storage tank management, and investigating leaking underground storage tank sites and other contaminated sites. SCDER also administers the Hazardous Materials Business Plan program. Hazardous Waste Transportation The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has developed regulations pertaining to the transport of hazardous wastes by all modes of transportation. U.S. EPA has also promulgated regulations for the transport of hazardous wastes through RCRA. The “cradle-to-grave” requirements of RCRA include tracking shipments with manifests to ensure that wastes are delivered to their intended destinations. The CHP and Caltrans have the primary responsibility to enforce hazardous materials transportation requirements established by DOT, U.S. EPA and California. Carriers must be licensed by the CHP. Vehicle and equipment inspection, shipment preparation, container identification, and shipping documentation are all part of CHP’s responsibility. CHP conducts regular inspections of licensed transporters to ensure regulatory compliance. LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan The City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan (2003) contains the following policies regarding hazardous waste disposal: Section M. Community Services – Hazardous Materials Management 1. Overview The County has prepared a Hazardous Waste Management Plan which is the guideline for managing hazardous waste in Stanislaus County. The goals, objectives, conclusions, recommendations, and implementation measures of that plan are hereby incorporated as part of this document (referring to the Modesto General Plan), along with any modifications which may result from state review of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 2. Hazardous Materials Management Policies c. In the event that site inspection of construction activities uncovers chemical contamination, underground storage tanks, abandoned drums, or other hazardous materials or wastes at a parcel, the inspection report preparer shall so notify the City. The City shall ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation G. Hazards Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.G.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 notify the County Health Services Department. Under the direction of these agencies, a site remediation plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. The plan would specify measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to the potential site hazards and certify that the proposed remediation measures would clean up the wastes, dispose the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal, state and local requirements. Permitting or work in the areas of potential hazard shall not proceed until the site remediation plan is on file with the City. If a parcel is found to be contaminated to a level that prohibits the proposed use, the potential for reduction of the hazard should be evaluated. Site remediation is theoretically capable of removing hazards to levels sufficiently low to allow any use at the site.5 In accordance with OSHA requirements, any activity performed at a contaminated site shall be preceded by preparation of a separate health and safety plan (prepared by the project applicant and filed with the City) for the protection of workers and the public. All reports, plans, and other documentation shall be added to the administrative record. e. Prior to issuance of all building permits, the City shall identify the site in relation to all CERCLIS sites and to known or suspected uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites. All projects within 2,000 feet of these facilities shall conduct hazardous materials studies as necessary to identify the type and extent of contamination, if any, and the extent of risk to human health and public safety. If necessary, a remedial action program would be developed and implemented as in the policy 2-c, as described above. Stanislaus County General Plan (Safety Element) The Stanislaus County General Plan, Safety Element (1994), contains the following policy and implementation measures that are relevant to hazardous materials identification and hazardous wastes: Policy Thirteen The Department of Environmental Resources shall continue to coordinate efforts to identify locations of hazardous materials and prepare and implement plans for management of spilled hazardous materials as required. Implementation Measures 1. The County will continue to provide planning efforts to locate and minimize the effects of hazardous materials through the County’s adopted emergency plan. 2. The County has prepared a Hazardous Waste Management Plan which is the guideline for managing hazardous wastes in the County. The goals, objectives, conclusions, recommendations and implementation measures of that plan are hereby incorporated as part of the Safety Element, along with any modifications which may result from state review of the Hazardous Waste Management Plan. 5 In practice, both the technical feasibility of the remediation and its cost (financial feasibility) should be evaluated to determine the overall feasibility of locating a specific use on a specific site. In some cases, it may require restriction to industrial use or a use that involves complete paving and covering of the parcel. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation G. Hazards Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.G.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 3. The Area Plan for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substances Release, required by the California Health and Safety Code, will be incorporated as part of the Safety Element when that plan is adopted. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA According to the Initial Study (Appendix A, pp. 23-25), the project would cause a significant adverse impact to the environment if it would: Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Modesto has also chosen to adopt the following standard of significance: Impacts will be significant if any proposed development involves an unauthorized release of the generation, use, or transport of any hazardous waste or if the project is located within or adjacent to a site known to have been contaminated with toxic or hazardous substances that has not been remediated. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The risk to human health and the environment is determined by the probability of exposure to potentially harmful material and the severity of harm such exposure would pose. This analysis therefore focuses on the potential for community or environmental exposure to occur and on the consequences of reasonably foreseeable exposures. Since the primary strategy to manage hazards is to prevent releases during both routine activities and upset conditions, much of the analysis involves evaluating the efficacy of measures proposed as part of the project to prevent exposures. Where environmental or community exposures may occur, the approach is to assess whether such exposures have the potential to create a significant hazard. A “significant hazard” is evaluated relative to ordinary hazards associated with day-to-day life in the Modesto region. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact G.1. Demolition of existing buildings could cause release of hazardous materials, causing potential hazards to the public and environment. (Less than Significant) Based on the age of existing buildings on the project site, buildings planned for demolition could contain lead and asbestos. Prior to 1978, lead compounds were commonly used in exterior and interior paints. Lead is a suspected human carcinogen causes cancer), a known teratogen and a reproductive toxin causes birth defects and sterility). Prior to the 1980s, building ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation G. Hazards Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.G.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 materials often contained asbestos fibers, which were used to provide strength and fire resistance. They were frequently found in insulation, roofing, and siding, textured paint and patching compounds used on wall and ceiling joints, vinyl floor tiles and adhesives, and water and steam pipes, among other uses. Asbestos is a known human carcinogen. Lead particles, asbestos fibers, and/or other hazardous materials could be released into the air during demolition and then may be inhaled by construction workers and the general public. In addition, other common items, such as electrical transformers, fluorescent lighting, electrical switches, heating/cooling equipment, and thermostats, can contain hazardous materials, which may pose a risk if not handled and disposed of properly. Federal and state regulations govern the demolition of structures where lead or material containing lead is present. Regulations pertaining to demolition of structures with lead-based paint are promulgated by the U.S. EPA, DTSC, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). For example, the U.S. EPA and DTSC require that lead-based paint equal to or greater than the HUD definition of lead-based paints (greater or equal to 1 mg/cm2 or 0.5 percent lead by weight) be removed prior to demolition if the paint is loose and peeling. If the paint is securely adhering to the substrate, the entire material may be disposed of as demolition debris, which is a non-hazardous waste. Loose and peeling paint must be disposed of as a California and/or federal hazardous waste if the concentration of lead exceeds applicable waste thresholds. Hazardous wastes must be appropriately managed, labeled, transported, and disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal requirements by trained workers. State and federal construction worker health and safety regulations require air monitoring and other protective measures during demolition activities where lead-based paint is present. Federal, state, and local requirements also govern the removal of asbestos or suspected asbestos- containing materials (ACM), including the demolition of structures where asbestos is present. These requirements are put into effect by the U.S. EPA, federal and state OSHA, DTSC, and SJVAPCD. All friable (crushable by hand) ACMs, or non-friable ACMs subject to damage, must be abated prior to demolition in accordance with applicable requirements. Friable ACM must be disposed of as an asbestos waste at an approved facility. Non-friable ACM may be disposed of as non-hazardous waste at landfills that will accept such wastes. Workers conducting asbestos abatement must be trained in accordance with state and federal OSHA requirements. Fluorescent lighting tubes and ballasts, computer displays, and several other common items containing hazardous materials are regulated as “universal wastes” by the State of California. Universal waste regulations allow common, low-hazard wastes to be managed under less stringent requirements than other hazardous wastes. Management of other hazardous wastes is governed by DTSC hazardous waste rules. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation G. Hazards Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.G.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Conformance with applicable regulations regarding testing of building materials for lead-based paint and asbestos-containing building materials, worker safety, and disposal of hazardous materials would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. Impact G.2. Excavation for installation of utilities and other construction on the project site could encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater and expose workers and the public to hazardous substances. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Implementation of the project would involve extensive excavation and trenching to install utilities and roads, and for building foundations. As discussed in the Initial Study (Appendix A, pp. 23- 25), the soils at several parcels on the project site have not been tested. If contaminated soil or groundwater is present, construction workers could be exposed to hazardous substances. In addition, construction could result in release of hazardous substances to the environment. For example, if an underground storage tank was damaged during excavation, hazardous substances could be released to the soil and groundwater. Further studies would be required to determine the nature and extent of contamination. Thereafter, as required by federal, state and local regulations, risk assessments and remedial plans would be developed and implemented prior to commencement of construction. The Environmental Health Division of the Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources would be involved in determining whether remediation is necessary and the method of necessary remediation. Implementation of the appropriate remediation at each contaminated site would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure G.2. Conduct remaining Phase I Environmental Site Assessments, conduct site investigations and implement remediation as necessary. Phase I ESAs shall be conducted on those parcels for which a Phase I has not yet been performed. Where the findings of the Phase I ESA indicate that soil or groundwater contamination could be present, a Phase II study shall be performed. Where the results of the Phase II ESA indicate that soil or groundwater contamination is present, any necessary remediation shall be conducted. In addition, the policies of Section M.2.c of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan would be implemented. Section M.2.c. states that in the event that site inspection of construction activities uncovers chemical contamination, underground storage tanks, abandoned drums, or other hazardous materials or wastes at a parcel, the inspection report preparer shall so notify the City. The City shall notify the County Health Services Department. Under the direction of these agencies, a site remediation plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation G. Hazards Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.G.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The plan would specify measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to the potential site hazards and certify that the proposed remediation measures would clean up the wastes, dispose the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal, state and local requirements. Permitting of work in the areas of potential hazard shall not proceed until the site remediation plan is on file with the City. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure G.2, the impact of potential release of, and exposure to, hazardous materials would be less than significant. Impact G.3. Transportation of contaminated soil and/or building materials removed from the project site could result in accidental release of hazardous materials. (Less than Significant) DOT, Caltrans, CHP, and DTSC regulate the transport of hazardous waste. Any contaminated soil or other hazardous waste removed from the project site would be transported in accordance with the regulations of these agencies. Conformance with these regulations would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the exposure to, and transport of, hazardous materials. Therefore, no significant cumulative adverse impact would occur. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 H. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section addresses the environmental setting and impacts related to biological resources, including threatened, endangered and other special-status species and habitats. While agricultural and other human-related activities have long ago greatly modified the natural communities that historically occurred along the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, this region still supports remnants of these communities and the diverse assemblage of plants and wildlife that they once contained. The potential impacts to biological resources are discussed here because development of the Tivoli project occurs in the vicinity of sensitive biological resources. The Initial Study checklist found that the project would not affect riparian or sensitive natural communities or affect the movement or conflict with provisions of an adopted conservation plan. Therefore, further discussion of these topics in the EIR is unnecessary (Appendix A, pp. 15-17). This section of the EIR focuses on the biotic habitats and special-status plant and wildlife species, particularly the sensitive species identified as potentially being affected by the proposed project, which include Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea). Further discussion of biological resources impacts is presented in the near-term and cumulative wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Federal and state endangered species legislation gives special status to several plant and animal species known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, state resource agencies and professional organizations, whose lists are recognized by agencies that review environmental documents, have identified some species occurring in the vicinity of the project site as sensitive. These species are referred to collectively as “species of special status” and include plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals listed as “fully protected” under the California Fish and Game Code; animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG); and plants listed as rare or endangered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS).1 ESA provisions protect federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats from unlawful take. Under the ESA, “take” is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated 1 California Native Plant Society, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 2001. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 conduct.” The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) regulations define harm as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife.” Such an act “may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering.”2 Activities that may result in “take” of individuals are regulated by the USFWS. The USFWS produced an updated list of candidate species in May 2005.3 Candidate species are not afforded any legal protection under ESA; however, candidate species typically receive special attention from federal and state agencies during the environmental review process. Provisions of CESA protect state-listed threatened and endangered species. CDFG regulates activities that may result in “take” of individuals “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of “take” under the California Fish and Game Code. Additionally, the California Fish and Game Code contains lists of vertebrate species designated as “fully protected.”4 Such species may not be taken or possessed. In addition to federal and state-listed species, the CDFG also has produced a list of Species of Special Concern to serve as a “watch list.” Species on this list are of limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations may be imminent. Species of Special Concern may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have statutory protection. USFWS also uses the label “Species of Concern” as an informal term that refers to those species that might be in need of concentrated conservation actions. Species of Concern receive no legal protection as a result of their designation, and the use of the term does not necessarily mean that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species. However, most, if not all, of these species are currently protected by state and federal laws. Raptors eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected under both federal and state regulations. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act5 (MBTA) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Birds of prey are protected in California under the State Fish and Game Code.6 Section 3503.5 states it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise 2 50 CFR §17.3. 3 50 CFR 17, May 11, 2005. 4 California Fish & Game Code §§3511 (birds), 4700 (mammals), 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), 5515 (fish). 5 16 U.S.C., Sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989. 6 Section 3503.5, 1992. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 provided by this Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by the CDFG. Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which might not have designated status under federal or state endangered species legislation, are defined as follows: List 1A: Plants considered by the CNPS to be extinct in California. List 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere. List 3: Plants about which we need more information – a review list. United States Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) identifies wetlands under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899). The legal definition of wetlands is given on p. 16 of Appendix D. Wetlands are identified using the USACE protocol manual.7 Construction activities within wetlands are regulated by the USACE. The placement of fill into wetlands must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The State Water Resources Control Board is the state agency (together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards) charged with implementing water quality certification in California. California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdiction The CDFG definition of stream includes “intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams shown on U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, and watercourses with subsurface flows. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, 7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Environmental Laboratory, Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife.”8 Such areas on the site were determined using CDFG’s methodology.9 Activities that result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream, or which substantially change its bed, channel or bank, or which utilize any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed, may require that the project applicant enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFG. Local Regulations and Programs Modesto’s Urban Area General Plan provides four measures related to sensitive wildlife and plant habitat.10 Elements of those measures that are relevant to the implementation of the proposed project are presented below: VII-E.3.a: For all lands within the Planned Urbanizing Area, site-specific surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine whether any sensitive natural communities or species are present within the proposed development area. These studies shall particularly focus on proposed development within any lands included within a potential biological resource study area as delineated on Figure 7-1 in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report (Riparian Corridor Diagram). Surveys should be conducted at the appropriate season to best determine the likelihood of occurrence and should employ accepted methodologies as determined by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The significant results of such surveys should be recorded onto the City’s existing biological resources map for future planning purposes. VII-E.3.b: All habitat found to contain or potentially contain sensitive species shall be avoided and preserved unless doing so would create, isolate and/or fragment habitat that would not function adequately as judged by a qualified biologist and/or that the proposed development layout would be so constrained as to make the development financially infeasible; avoided habitat areas shall also be protected by fencing, signage and/or establishment of buffer zones as appropriate to the species or habitat involved. Generally, a minimum 100-foot buffer of undeveloped land would be necessary. The protected habitat shall contribute to the long-term conservation of the species and ecosystems on which they depend. VII-E.3.c: Where formally listed species are determined to be present, consultation shall be carried out with the CDFG and/or USFWS in accordance with the California and/or federal Endangered Species Acts. Where candidate or other special-status species are involved, informal consultation with these agencies is recommended. The recommendations of these 8 California Department of Fish and Game, A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, 1994 (“CDFG 1994a”). 9 CDFG, 1994a. 10 City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan, 1995, amended 2003. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 agencies shall be incorporated into the development plan, unless overriding considerations can be demonstrated. VII-E.3.d: Other measures to protect sensitive habitats may be implemented. Potential measures to be implemented may include those measures listed in Table 7-1 in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report. EXISTING CONDITIONS The Tivoli project site is located in the northeast portion of Modesto, Stanislaus County, California. The project site is situated on nearly level floodplains comprising deep, fertile soils. The majority of land within the project site is cultivated and used for annual grain production, including barley and oat hay. Large tracts of orchard and vineyard also occur on the project site. Reconnaissance-level field surveys of the project site were conducted on May 5, 11, and 12, 2005. A biotic study summarizing the results of this survey is included in Appendix D. The purpose of these surveys was to document biotic resources on the site that may pose constraints to the proposed development. Specifically, surveys were conducted to: 1) describe existing biotic habitats; 2) assess the site for its potential to support special-status species and their habitats; and 3) identify potential jurisdictional habitats, including Waters of the U.S., riparian habitat, and ordinance trees. The project site is primarily characterized by agricultural habitat types, including orchards, vineyards, forage crops, disked and irrigated pastures, freshwater marshes (man-made), and urban areas. The project site also includes numerous irrigation ditches. These biotic habitats, and associated vegetation and wildlife, are described in further detail below. BIOTIC HABITATS AND ASSOCIATED VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Orchard Deciduous and evergreen orchards occupy approximately 28 acres, or approximately 6 percent, of the project site. These orchards are located east of Oakdale Road, in the northwestern portion of the site, and in the southwest portion north of Sylvan Avenue. These orchards support scattered patches of ruderal (herbaceous, non-native) plants, including rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. gussoneanum), black mustard (Brassica nigra), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), filaree (Erodium sp.), soft chess brome (Bromus hordeaceus), fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora) and shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris). These plant species grow below the tree canopy and along the access roads around the perimeter of the orchards. However, the majority of orchard habitat is devoid of vegetation, due to weed control and crop production activities. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Orchards typically provide limited habitats for wildlife, as frequent disturbances associated with crop production pruning, spraying, harvesting, and watering) limit the potential for most wildlife species to persist in these habitats. White-tailed Kites (Elanus leucurus) and Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni), in particular, are not likely to nest within these orchards because they are intolerant of frequent disturbance. Common reptiles such as the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) are known to persist under these conditions, and some common bird species are attracted to nut crops and can be abundant in orchards, such as the American Crow (Corvus and Yellow-billed Magpie (Pica nuttalli). Burrowing animals, such as California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) and gophers (Thomomys sp.), are typically discouraged in orchards due to damage they cause to crops and irrigation systems. Vineyard Vineyards occupy approximately 42 acres, or approximately 9 percent of the project site. These vineyards are located on the east side of Oakdale Road in the northwestern portion of the site. Vineyards, as with orchards, support a variety of ruderal plant species as mentioned above. Vineyards provide limited habitats for wildlife, as the frequent disturbances associated with crop production limit the potential for most wildlife species to persist in vineyards. Common animals such as the side-blotched lizard can persist under these conditions. Some birds, such as American Crows and Western Scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica), are attracted to fruit crops and can be quite abundant. Burrowing animals such as California ground squirrels and gophers (Thomomys sp.) are normally actively discouraged because of the damage they can cause to vines and irrigation systems. Dry-Farmed Forage Crop Dry-farmed forage crops, consisting primarily of barley and oat hay, encompass approximately 141 acres, or approximately 30 percent, of the project site. Several large barley fields occur in the central and northeast portions of the project site west of Roselle Avenue. Additional tracts of oat hay occur in the south-central and southeast portions of the project site adjacent to Sylvan Avenue and Oakdale Road. Dry-farmed forage crops can provide an abundant food supply so that flocks of Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura), Brewer’s and Red-winged blackbirds (Euphagus cyanocephalus and Agelaius phoeniceus, respectively), and House Finches (Carpodacus mexicanus) can often be found foraging in dryland agriculture habitat. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Disked Field Approximately 106 acres, or approximately 22 percent of the project site, comprises disked agricultural fields. Several large, freshly-disked fields, in the south-central and north-central portions of the site, are completely devoid of vegetation. One row of approximately 20 narrow- leaved willow (Salix exigua) shrubs associated with a minor irrigation ditch occurs adjacent to the north side of a disked field along the north-central boundary of the project site. Although these shrubs form dense and continuous vegetative cover for approximately 200 linear feet, they represent an isolated stand of non-riparian vegetation that is not associated with native hydrology natural creeks, streams, or drainages). Cultivated fields provide limited habitat for wildlife due to their disturbed nature. The frequent plowing for cultivation and weed-control activities disrupt burrows and ground cover for terrestrial mammals. Species that use cultivated habitats are generally widespread species accustomed to disturbances, such as American Kestrels (Falco sparverius), American Crows, Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), Mourning Doves, Western Meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta), Brewer’s Blackbirds, and House Finches. Species such as Swainson’s Hawks, Snowy and Great Egrets (Egretta thula and Ardea alba, respectively), Turkey Vultures (Cathartes aura), and other avian predators prefer to forage in some cultivated fields during tilling as insects, small mammals, and other prey are uncovered and easy to catch. Irrigated Pasture The irrigated pasture agriculture habitat of the site provides wildlife habitat similar to that found in the dry-farmed forage crop habitat previously described. The periodic disking of agricultural areas on the site disrupts burrows and other places of refuge for reptiles, rodents, and other small animals. Efficient burrowers such as California ground squirrels are capable of recolonizing this habitat after the disturbance has passed. Such colonization is usually limited to the periphery of the field. Irrigated pasture occupies approximately 51 acres, or approximately 10 percent of the project site. This habitat occurs primarily in the southeast portion of the project site adjacent to Roselle Avenue. A series of open irrigation ditches connected to subsurface irrigation lines are used along field margins to flood the pastures. Irrigated pasture is dominated by annual and perennial non-native grasses and forbs commonly grown for forage, including Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), rabbits foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), white sweetclover (Melilotus alba), white clover (Trifolium repens), and filaree. Some areas of irrigated pasture occupy low-lying topographic depressions on the site have been saturated for long periods of time and support water-loving plant species indicative of seasonal ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 freshwater wetlands habitat. Plant species observed in these areas included buttercup (Ranunculus muricatus), water primrose (Ludwigia peploides), hyssop loosestrife hyssopifolium), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), knotweed (Polygonum sp.), nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and toad rush (Juncus bufonius). Two linear stands of well-established Eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.) occur just off site in the north- central portion of the project site adjacent to a field of irrigated pasture. Special-status animals that may use pasture habitat in the vicinity of the project site include Swainson’s Hawk, Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia), and Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Other bird species in pastures include Mallard (Anas Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Wetland Three areas of man-made, freshwater-marsh habitat exist on the site as a result of the flood irrigation practices. These areas are located within, and adjacent to, two irrigation ditches in the north-central portion of the site and occupy 2.51 acres, or less than 1 percent of the project site. The precise location of the wetlands is depicted on the habitat map as “freshwater marsh” area contained in the Biotic Study (Appendix Two of the areas are dominated by tule (Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis) and knotweed, and are located in low-lying, topographic depressions adjacent to the east side of the primary irrigation ditch bisecting the north-central portion of the project site. The third patch consists of a dense stand of cattail (Typha sp.) within a secondary irrigation ditch located along the north-central boundary of the project site. These patches of freshwater marsh habitat would die off if the flood irrigation practices on the project site were stopped. Wildlife species that may use the freshwater habitat on the site include exotic bullfrogs (Rana catesbieana), Great Egret, Snowy Egret, Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus), American Coot (Fulica americana), Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and Tricolored and Red-winged blackbirds. Urban Approximately 98 acres, or approximately 21 percent of the project site, are comprised of developed urban areas. These areas include residential areas along Mable in the west-central region of the project site, commercial developments and residential subdivisions along Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue, and numerous rural residential homes and ranchettes throughout the project site. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Many of the ruderal plant species occur around these developments, in addition to a wide variety of native and ornamental trees, including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Northern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii), Eucalyptus, and a host of orchard tree varieties. Homesteads and suburban landscapes typically provide habitat for common wildlife species accustomed to human disturbance. Common backyard birds likely to be present at these sites include Western Scrub-Jays (Aphelocoma californica), American Robins (Turdus migratorius), Northern Mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), Hooded Orioles (Icterus cucullatus), House Finches, and House Sparrows (Passer domesticus). Western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) and desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audobonii) may be present in the vicinity of wood or brush piles. SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Federal Status: None; State Status: Threatened The Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a large soaring bird of open habitats. Swainson’s Hawks were once one of the most common birds of prey in the grasslands of California. Populations have declined at least 90 percent since 1990, and are still believed to be declining.11 They once nested in the majority of the lowland areas in the state. Currently, the nesting range is primarily restricted to portions of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and northeast California.12 It was listed as Threatened by the State of California in 1983. Swainson’s Hawks require large amounts of foraging habitat, preferably grassland or pasture habitats. Their preferred prey items are voles (Microtus sp), gophers, birds, and insects such as grasshoppers.13 They have also adapted to some croplands, particularly alfalfa, but also forage in hay, grain, tomatoes, beets, and other row crops.14 Crops such as cotton, corn, rice, orchards, and vineyards are not suitable since they either lack suitable prey or the prey is unavailable due to the crop structure. 11 P.H. Bloom and D. Van De Water, Swainson’s Hawk, in C.G. Thelander and M.Crabtree, eds, Life on the Edge: A Guide to California’s Endangered Natural Resources: Wildlife, Biosystems Books, 1994. 12 P.H. Bloom, The Status of the Swainson’s Hawk in California, 1979, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Project W-54-R-12, Final Report 11-8-0, California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section, 1980 13 J.A. Estep, Biology, movements and habitat relationships of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-1987, California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section, 1989. 14 Estep, 1989. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 In the Central Valley, Swainson’s Hawks are generally tied to riparian habitat for nesting sites.15 A few pairs nesting in Tulare and Kings County use eucalyptus trees and nest outside riparian areas.16 In the fall, Swainson’s Hawks form flocks called kettles, sometimes in large numbers, and migrate together to South America. Kettles can occasionally be seen in the valley foraging behind tractors or harvesters, hunting mice and insects that have been displaced by the activities. The contains four records of Swainson’s Hawks within ten miles of the project site and two within five miles of the project site.17 The most recent of these records was recorded in 1999; however, more recent, unrecorded, nesting activity is highly probable in the vicinity of the project site because suitable nesting and foraging habitat has been maintained. No Swainson’s Hawks were observed nesting on the project site during the field survey, but a Swainson’s Hawk was observed foraging on the site. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) Federal Status: None; State Status: Fully Protected Species The White-tailed Kite prefers open habitats including grasslands, agricultural row crops, hayfields, pastures, and savanna. Kite nests are built near the tops of oaks, willows, or other dense broad-leafed deciduous trees in partially cleared or cultivated fields, grassy foothills, marsh, riparian, woodland, urban/suburban parks and gardens, and savannah. Kites prey primarily on small rodents (especially California voles), but also on small birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians. Once considered endangered, the White-tailed Kite is now fairly common. A pair of White-tailed Kites was observed exhibiting courtship behavior immediately north of the project site in an adjacent agricultural (orchard) property. There are numerous trees that provide nesting habitat, and these are primarily clustered around the residential areas. Kites may forage in all of the open agricultural fields and pastures on the project site. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) Federal Status: None; State Status: Species of Special Concern (nesting) The Northern Harrier is commonly found in open grasslands, agricultural areas, and marshes. Nests are built on the ground in areas where tall grasses or marsh plants provide cover and protection. Harriers hunt for a variety of prey, including rodents, birds, frogs, reptiles, and insects 15 Bloom, 1980. 16 California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, 2005. 17 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 by flying low, slowly traversing their foraging area, using both sight and sound to detect prey. Northern Harriers are common in the Central Valley, especially during winter. Harriers may forage in all of the open agricultural fields and pastures on the project site, especially during the winter when local populations are augmented by an influx of migrants from other regions. Harriers nest in grasslands, fallow fields and marshes within large, open landscapes. They are unlikely to nest on the project site because these habitats on the site are fragmented and isolated from other suitable habitat by orchards, vineyards, and suburban/urban areas. Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern The Burrowing Owl is a small, terrestrial owl of open country. Burrowing Owls favor flat, open grassland or gentle slopes, and sparse shrubland ecosystems. In California, Burrowing Owls are found in close association with California ground squirrels. Owls use ground squirrel burrows for shelter and nesting. One adult owl was observed on the project site in the vicinity of a burrow showing evidence of prior use by Burrowing Owls pellets, whitewash). Habitat characteristics on site are favorable for Burrowing Owls as they will forage in the open agricultural fields and pasturelands that dominate the project area. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) Federal listing status: None; State listing status: Species of Special Concern. This predatory songbird inhabits much of the lower 48 states. Loggerhead Shrikes prefer open habitats interspersed with shrubs, trees, poles, fences, or other perches from which they can hunt. While Loggerhead Shrike populations have declined significantly over the last 20 years in the eastern and midwestern states, Loggerhead Shrikes are still considered a fairly common species in California. Nests are built in densely vegetated shrubs or trees, often containing thorns, which offer protection from predators and upon which prey items are impaled. One shrike was observed on the project site during site surveys. Furthermore, the project site contains suitable breeding and foraging habitat. Shrikes may breed in isolated shrubs and small trees interspersed in the agricultural landscape and in the suburban/rural gardens and yards abutting pastures and fields. The agricultural fields, pasturelands and adjacent residential areas in the project area provide suitable foraging habitat for shrikes. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) Federal listing status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern Tricolored Blackbirds are found almost exclusively in the Central Valley, and central and southern coastal areas of California. In 1992, surveys by the CDFG determined that the population of this species was much larger than previously believed. Thus, the concern for the species lessened considerably. The Tricolored Blackbird is highly colonial in its nesting habits and forms dense breeding colonies of up to tens of thousands of pairs. This species typically nests primarily in tall, dense stands of cattails or tules, but also in blackberry brambles, thistle, alfalfa, wild rose bushes, and tall herbs. Nesting colonies are typically located near standing or flowing freshwater in the vicinity of foraging habitat such as row crops, hay fields, pastures, grasslands, and dairy feedlots. Tricolored Blackbirds form large, often multi-species flocks during the non-breeding period and range more widely than during the reproductive season. The project site contains suitable breeding and foraging habitat. Breeding habitat includes the emergent marsh vegetation along the canal at the northern end of the property. Tricolored Blackbirds may forage in all of the agricultural fields and pasturelands in the project area. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The proposed project will have a number of effects on the biological resources of the project site. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines a “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.”18 (Pub. Res. Code, §21068). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a project's effects on biotic resources are deemed significant where the project would: substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, and/or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. During the process of developing their General Plan,23 the City of Modesto reviewed the thresholds of significance suggested by the state CEQA Guidelines and the “mandatory findings of significance” (Section 15065). The city also reviewed thresholds of significance in the federal 18 Public Resources Code, Section 21068. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 and state endangered species acts, which deem actions that would result in the “take” of a listed species or that would adversely impact protected species as significant. The City of Modesto adopted the finding that actions that would violate the federal and state laws (and related regulations), including but not limited to the federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, and federal Clean Water Act, would be significant. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were used to evaluate impacts on biological resources that would result from the implementation of the proposed project: 1. Direct impact to wildlife species are assumed to be correlated with the loss of plant communities that provide their primary habitat. These losses would result from site excavation, road building, grading, filling or other damage to habitats, and direct wildlife loss or disturbance by construction activities and human uses. The conversion of these communities to commercial and residential development and infrastructure, therefore, may result in the loss or reduction of use for some wildlife species. The existing wildlife species are usually eliminated or replaced with a group of species that tolerate environmental conditions in the completed development. 2. Indirect impacts to wildlife could also occur. If remaining fragments of undeveloped habitat are isolated from larger areas of contiguous habitat, particularly during development of individual parcels in the Specific Plan area, the remaining habitats are expected to have lower biological values than those prevailing before development. Indirect impacts to wildlife that are most often associated with increased human activity can occur off site. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact H.1. Implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan could result in loss of foraging habitat for White-tailed Kites and Northern Harriers. (Less than Significant) Dry-farmed forage crops, disked fields, and irrigated pastures within which White-tailed Kites or Northern Harriers may forage are regionally abundant. Project implementation would not substantially reduce the foraging habitat available for these species, restrict their range, or cause their regional populations to drop below a self-sustaining level. California Fish and Game Code Section 3503 prohibits the unlawful take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird, and Section 3513 prohibits the unlawful take of any migratory nongame bird. Therefore, impacts to these species stemming from a loss of foraging habitat would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact H.2. Implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan could result in loss of breeding and foraging habitat for Tricolored Blackbirds and Loggerhead Shrikes. (Less than Significant) Although not observed during field surveys, Tricolored Blackbirds could nest on the site within the emergent vegetation associated with the artificial wetlands and forage within the irrigated pastures. A Loggerhead Shrike was observed during field surveys and shrikes are expected to forage within the agricultural habitats and may nest within isolated shrubs and small trees interspersed in the agricultural landscape and in the rural gardens and yards abutting pastures and fields. Similar potential breeding and foraging habitat for Tricolored Blackbirds and Loggerhead Shrikes associated with agricultural operations and urban areas is regionally abundant. Project implementation will not substantially reduce the foraging habitat available for these species, restrict their range, or cause their regional populations to drop below a self-sustaining level. Therefore, impacts to these species stemming from a loss of foraging habitat would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. Impact H.3. Implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan would result in loss of wetland habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The proposed project would remove the surface and subsurface agricultural irrigation ditches and water-conveyance structures on the site, and eliminate the 2.51 acres of wetlands sustained by current irrigation practices (the location of the wetlands areas are depicted as “freshwater marsh” area in the Biotic Study, Appendix D, Figure 2: Habitat Map). The California Fish and Game Commission’s policy is to provide for the protection, preservation, restoration, enhancement and expansion of wetland habitat in California.” Therefore, the Commission “opposes wetland development proposals unless, at a minimum, project mitigation assures there will be “no net loss” of either wetland habitat values or acreage”.19 The Commission's wetland policy contains two primary considerations for offsetting adverse impacts to wetlands. The policy stresses the need to compensate for the loss of wetland habitat on an acre-for-acre basis and compensation for the loss of wetland habitat values requires the creation of habitat values equal to or greater than those habitat values lost to project implementation. This policy and implementation procedures are non-regulatory in nature. Their intended application is in those circumstances where the CDFG's role is advisory, as in, but not limited to, the application of CEQA. The CDFG considers projects that impact these resources as significant under CEQA if they result in a net loss of wetland acreage or habitat value. Even though the small, isolated, wetlands are not a sensitive habitat and similar patches of wetlands associated with agricultural operations 19 California Fish and Game Commission website: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/html/p4misc.html#WETLANDS ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.15 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 are regionally abundant, wetlands that have been inadvertently created by leaks, dams, or other structures, or failures in man-made water systems are not exempt from this policy. Mitigation Measure H.3. When wetland habitat cannot be avoided, any reduction in the 2.51 acres of wetlands will be compensated for, at a minimum ratio of 1:1, by the project proponents by implementing one of the four mitigation alternatives described in the Department of Fish and Game Recommended Wetland Definition, Mitigation Strategies, and Habitat Value Assessment Methodology: In-kind, On-site; In-kind, Off-site; Out-of-kind, On-site; or Out-of-kind, Off-site.20 The project sponsors are responsible for submitting their specific wetland mitigation strategy to CDFG for review and gain approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The wetland mitigation strategy shall include providing additional land for the dual use park/basin if the mitigation occurs on-site. Should the project sponsor select an off-site strategy that affects USACE or CDFG regulated habitats, the project sponsor shall be responsible for obtaining all necessary permits. The project sponsors would also be responsible for obtaining Streambed Alteration Agreements from CDFG if they are determined to be required for removing agricultural irrigation ditches. Impact H.4. Implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan could disturb nesting Swainson’s Hawks. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Swainson’s Hawks were not observed nesting on the project site; however, CDFG recommends that no intensive new disturbances or other project-related activities, which may cause nest abandonment or forced fledging, should be initiated within a 0.25-mile buffer of an active nest between March 1 and September 15, or until August 15 if a Management Authorization or Biological Opinion is obtained for the project. Construction activities during the breeding season that result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment would constitute a significant impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact on this species to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure H.4. Pre-construction surveys to avoid nest disturbance In order to assure that nesting Swainson’s Hawks will not be disturbed by construction, a qualified ornithologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys of the project site and adjacent areas within 0.5 miles of the project site. Survey Period I occurs from January 1 to March 20, Period II from March 21 to April 5, Period III from April 6 to April 20, Period IV from April 21 to June 10 (surveys not recommended during this period because identification is difficult, as the 20 California Fish and Game Commission website: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/html/p4misc.html#WETLANDS ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.15a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 adults tend to remain within the nest for longer periods of time), and Period V from June 11 to July 30. No fewer than three surveys shall be completed, in at least each of the two survey ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.16 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 periods immediately prior to project initiation. If a nest site is found, consultation with CDFG shall be required to ensure project initiation will not result in nest disturbance. Impact H.5. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in loss of Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The site does contain suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks and one was observed foraging on the site during a field survey. Preferred foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks includes dry-land and irrigated pasture, alfalfa, fallow fields, low-growing row or field crops, rice land, and cereal grain crops.21 The project site includes approximately 141 acres of forage crops consisting primarily of cereal grain, 106 acres of agricultural/disked lands, and 51 acres of irrigated pasture that may serve as foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks. Project implementation would result in the loss of approximately 298 acres of foraging habitat, resulting in a significant adverse effect to this state- threatened species through habitat modification. CDFG considers the loss of foraging habitat in the Modesto region as significant under CEQA because of the cumulative loss of Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat throughout the San Joaquin Valley. The loss of habitat results in a restriction in the range and reduction in numbers of this state-threatened species. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impact on this species to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure H.5. Compensation for loss of foraging habitat. Loss of 297.5 acres of foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks shall be mitigated by providing offsite Habitat Management (HM) lands as described in the CDFG’s Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California22 because the site was confirmed to be foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks through direct observation and is likely within ten miles of an active nest (used during one or more of the last five years). The acreage of off-site management lands to be provided will depend on the distance between the project site and the nearest active nest site.23 The 1994 CDFG staff report states: Projects within one mile of an active nest tree shall provide: One acre of HM land (at least 10% of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement allowing for the active management of 21 California Department of Fish and Game, Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California, 1994 (“CDFG 1994b”). 22 CDFG 1994b. 23 CDFG 1994b. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.17 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 the habitat, with the remaining 90% of the HM lands protected by a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats that provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawk) for each acre of development authorized (1:1 ratio); or One-half acre of HM land (all of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] which allows for the active management of the habitat for prey production on the HM lands) for each acre of development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). Projects within 5 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 1 mile from the nest tree shall provide 0.75 acres of HM land for each acre of urban development authorized (0.75:1 ratio). All HM lands protected under this requirement may be protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the department) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats that provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks. Projects within 10 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 5 miles from an active nest tree shall provide 0.5 acres of HM land for each acre of urban development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). All HM lands protected under this requirement may be protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the Department) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats that provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks. Management Authorization holders/project sponsors shall provide for the long-term management of the HM lands by funding a management endowment (the interest on which shall be used for managing the HM lands) at the rate of $400 per HM acre. Current records within the are more than five years old, so they alone cannot be used to confirm a mitigation ratio for the loss of approximately 298 acres of foraging habitat. The records do, however, provide guidance. The mitigation ratio depends on whether the project site is within one of three zones: 1) less than a mile; 2) between one and five miles; or 3) between five and ten miles. Nests have been recorded within the riparian habitats along both the Stanislaus River and Tuolumne River within ten miles of the project site. Even though the existing records along these rivers are more than five years old, active unpublished nests along these rivers within the last five years are nearly certain to have occurred. Therefore, this analysis assumes that active Swainson’s Hawks nests are present within ten miles of the project site. Nest season surveys for Swainson’s Hawks should be conducted to confirm whether an active nest occurs within one of the closer zones. Assuming that nests are present within ten miles, however, reduces the area requiring nest-season surveys from 314.2 square miles to 78.5 square miles; the area within 5 miles of the project site. 24 California Natural Diversity Data Base, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.18 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact H.6. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in loss of occupied Burrowing Owl habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) An adult Burrowing Owl was observed on the project site during field surveys. The owl was observed along a fence line adjacent to irrigated pasture in the southwest section of the project site. The observed owl appeared to be a resident, based on the presence of sign pellets and whitewash) near the entry to a ground squirrel burrow from which the owl emerged. If Burrowing Owls are present on the site, or adjacent to the site, at the time of construction, disturbance could destroy occupied burrows. Construction during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. The loss of occupied Burrowing Owl habitat (habitat known to have been occupied by owls during the nesting season within the past 3 years) or reductions in the number of this rare species within Stanislaus County, directly or indirectly through nest abandonment or reproductive suppression, is considered a significant impact by CDFG. Furthermore, raptors, including owls and their nests, are protected under both federal and state laws and regulations, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code section 3503.5. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impact on this species to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation Measure H.6a. Implementation of formal CDFG guidelines25 to avoid and minimize impacts to Burrowing Owls. In conformance with federal and state regulations regarding the protection of raptors, a habitat assessment in accordance with CDFG guidelines for Burrowing Owls should be completed prior to the start of construction. Burrowing Owl habitat on the project site and within a 500-foot (150 m) buffer zone should be assessed. If the habitat assessment concludes that the site and immediate vicinity lack suitable Burrowing Owl habitat, no additional action would be warranted. However, if suitable habitat is located on, or immediately adjacent to, the site, all Burrowing Owl habitat should be mapped at an appropriate scale, and the following mitigation measures should be implemented: 1. In conformance with federal and state regulations regarding the protection of raptors, a pre-construction survey for Burrowing Owls, in conformance with CDFG guidelines, should be completed no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction within suitable habitat. Three additional surveys should also be completed per CDFG guidelines prior to construction. 2. No Burrowing Owls will be evicted from burrows during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Eviction outside the nesting season may be permitted pending 25 Staff report on Burrowing Owl mitigation, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, 1995. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.19 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 evaluation of eviction plans and receipt of formal written approval from the CDFG authorizing the eviction. 3. A 250-foot (76 m) buffer, within which no new activity will be permissible, will be maintained between project activities and nesting Burrowing Owls during the nesting season. This protected area will remain in effect until August 31, or at the CDFG’s discretion and based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently. 4. If accidental take (disturbance, injury, or death of owls) occurs, the CDFG will be notified immediately. Mitigation Measure H.6b. Compensation for loss of Burrowing Owl habitat. If pre-construction surveys determine that Burrowing Owls occupy the site and avoiding development of occupied areas is not feasible, then habitat compensation on off-site mitigation lands should be implemented. Habitat Management (HM) lands comprising existing Burrowing Owl foraging and breeding habitat should be acquired and preserved. An area of 6.5 acres (2.6 ha) (the amount of land found to be necessary to sustain a pair or individual owl) should be secured for each pair of owls, or individual in the case of an odd number of birds. As part of an agreement with the CDFG, the project applicant should secure the performance of its mitigation duties by providing the CDFG with security in the form of funds that would: Allow for the acquisition and/or preservation of 6.5 acres (2.6 ha) of HM lands; Provide initial protection and enhancement activities on the HM lands, potentially including, but not limited to, such measures as fencing, trash clean-up, artificial burrow creation, grazing or mowing, and any habitat restoration deemed necessary by CDFG; Establish an endowment for the long-term management of the HM lands; and Reimburse the CDFG for reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the approval and implementation of this agreement. Pending CDFG approval, HM lands providing foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks (see “Loss of Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat” below) may also be used to mitigate impacts to Burrowing Owls provided the HM lands provide existing Burrowing Owl foraging and breeding habitat. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact H.7. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in cumulative loss of Swainson’s Hawk and Burrowing Owl habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Loss of nesting and foraging habitat due to agricultural and urban expansion has greatly reduced the breeding range and abundance of Swainson’s Hawks and Burrowing Owls in California. Modesto, as the largest city in Stanislaus County, is expected, and planned, to accommodate a ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation H. Biology Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.H.20 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 substantial share of the County’s projected population growth.26 Development in the Modesto area under the Urban Area General Plan would convert approximately 26,100 acres of agricultural land identified by the California Department of Conservation as either Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or farmland of state or local importance.27 Considering agricultural conversion in the Modesto area, conversion of approximately 298 acres of suitable Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat and occupied Burrowing Owl habitat on the project site would result in significant cumulative impacts to Swainson’s Hawks and Burrowing Owls. Mitigation measures described above would reduce these cumulative impacts to less-than- significant levels. Mitigation Measure H.7. Same as Mitigation Measures H.3, H.4, H.5, and H.6. 26 City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan, March 2003. 27 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, March 2003. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting IV.I.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 I. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section describes the existing hydrological setting for the Modesto area, including runoff, drainage, and water quality. The analysis is based on information included in published and unpublished reports, and consultation with City staff. Based on information collected, this section identifies impacts that may result from project development and suggests mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts. Further discussion of hydrology and water quality impacts is presented in the near-term wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING Below is a description of the existing conditions in the vicinity of the Specific Plan area related to hydrology, storm drainage, and water quality. CLIMATE The climate in Modesto is characterized as dry-summer subtropical (often referred to as Mediterranean), with cool wet winters and warm, dry summers. The mean annual rainfall in the vicinity of the project site, for the period between 1931 and 2005, is approximately 12.4 inches, with the majority of rainfall between October and May.1 The lowest rainfall year on record is 1913 when only 4.3 inches of rain fell, while the highest recorded rainfall was 26.0 inches in 1983.2 The western U.S., including the Modesto area, periodically experiences a weather phenomenon referred to as the “Pineapple Express.” The Pineapple Express is a Pacific Ocean subtropical jet stream that brings warm moist air from Hawaii (where pineapples are grown) into the region. The combination of moisture-laden air, atmospheric dynamics, and orographic3 enhancement that results as this air passes over the mountain ranges of the West Coast causes some of the most torrential rains to occur in the region. Many major West Coast flooding events, such as the 1997 floods in the Central Valley, came about because of this weather phenomenon. 1 Western Regional Climate Center, 2004. Website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi- bin/cliMAIN.pl?camode+nca. 2 The City of Modesto, Engineering & Transportation Department, Capital Planning Division and the Modesto Irrigation District, 2000, Urban Water Management Plan. 3 Of or pertaining to the physical geography of mountains and mountain ranges. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 SURFACE WATER Runoff and Drainage The Specific Plan area is located within the San Joaquin Valley, a relatively flat, structural and topographic trough. The primary source of surface water flows in the San Joaquin Valley is rainfall and snowmelt runoff from the Sierra Nevada range to the east. The secondary source of surface water flow is local rainfall and runoff from the Coast Range to the west. In general, runoff flows from the Sierra Nevada toward the west across alluvial fans and the valley floor in streams and rivers, including the Kings, Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Rivers. These westward-flowing rivers join with the San Joaquin River on the west side of the valley, where the combined flows travel northwest toward the Delta and San Francisco Bay. The study area is located in rural northeastern Modesto approximately three miles south of the Stanislaus River and two and one-half miles north of Dry Creek (a major tributary to the Tuolumne River). The Modesto Irrigation District (MID)4 operates several irrigation canal “laterals” that flow east to west in the vicinity of the study area (Figure IV-D.1). Lateral No. 6 is located less than one mile to the north and Lateral No. 3 is located approximately one and one- half miles to the south. These laterals, open concrete-lined canals that were completed in the early 1900s, are essentially constructed conveyance structures that divert water from the Tuolumne River (and a series of reservoirs). The primary function of these laterals is to distribute water to irrigated farmlands. To a limited extent, these laterals receive irrigation return flows and receive urban storm water runoff.5 Increasingly, discharges into the laterals of urban storm water runoff associated with new development are being carefully scrutinized by the MID.6 The MID is concerned about the quantity and quality of storm water in the laterals. Quantity is an issue because the laterals were designed to distribute irrigation water and therefore decrease in size (because irrigation water is used along the flow path and the acreage served diminishes). Storm water conveyances typically increase in size as more water is collected. If too 4 The Modesto Irrigation District (MID) was formed in 1887 by the Modesto voters and represented the second irrigation district formed in California. The Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts built La Grange Dam, a diversion dam, on the Tuolumne River in 1893. MID continues to divert water to the north of the river and the Turlock Irrigation District diverts water to the south. Don Pedro Reservoir is the MID’s primary water storage facility, while Modesto Reservoir is a small holding reservoir. Modesto and Turlock irrigation districts constructed the original Don Pedro Reservoir in 1923. It was replaced by the completion of New Don Pedro Reservoir and Dam in 1971. 5 Bill Ketscher, Irrigation Engineer, Modesto Irrigation District, personal communication with Bruce Abelli-Amen of BASELINE, October 7, 2005. 6 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting IV.I.2a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 much storm water is discharged to the laterals, they could flood or overtop the capacity of certain reaches throughout the system. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The MID is also concerned that urban pollutants in storm water runoff in the laterals could, either in the near or distant future, affect compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements (described in more detail below) regarding discharge into the San Joaquin River. In some regions, studies have shown that urban runoff may contain substances ranging from used motor oil to industrial solvents to backyard weed killers.7 The project site slopes gently toward the southwest. Drainage flows by overland sheet flow (or in irrigation furrows) until it encounters drainage ditches. Stormwater at the site infiltrates, evaporates, or is conveyed away by open irrigation ditches. Approximately 74 percent of the site is covered by soils that are characterized by the National Resource Conservation Service as having “slow” to “very slow” permeability.8 Low permeability soils would not allow substantial deep infiltration and groundwater recharge to occur during storm events. Drainage from the developed portions of the site occurs in street swales directed to rock wells.9 The Cavil Drain (a 30-inch pipe in the site vicinity) crosses the southeast corner of the site. The Cavil Drain is an older conveyance structure of limited capacity. Flooding Storm-Related and Snowmelt Flooding Due to its climate and geography, flooding is a frequent and natural event in the Central Valley. Major floods in the Central Valley within the past 25 years (1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997) have caused significant damage.10 The project site is not located within a FEMA-designated 100-year flood hazard zone. However, the site is within a broad, relatively flat area that is subject to sheet flow-type shallow flooding. In February 1998, a series of storms resulted in shallow flooding in the northeast area of the City. The main storm in the series produced three inches of rainfall in 36 hours, and was followed by subsequent storm events of lesser magnitude over the next week and a half.11 The area that was subjected to the greatest degree of prolonged flooding extended east of Oakdale Road and north of Sylvan Avenue (which includes the project site). A solution to eliminate the sheet flow flooding hazards associated with these offsite upslope watersheds has been proposed in a City-sponsored flood control study.12 The solution consists of a series of four detention basins located on the east side of the Atchison Topeka & Sante Fe 7 Modesto Irrigation District website: http://www.mid.org/about/2004/ar-04-water.htm 8 National Resource Conservation Service, 2005, Soil Survey of Eastern Stanislaus Area, California, web- based soil survey. 9 A rock well is a hole drilled into the ground and filled with graded rocks and sand. 10 State of California Reclamation Board and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, Comprehensive Study, Technical Studies Documentation, December 2002. 11 Stantec, Draft Northeast Area Updated Off-site Watershed Storm Drainage Evaluation, March 2005. 12 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 railroad (see Figure IV.I.1: Proposed Flood Control Solution). The basins would capture flows from the northeast and detain the runoff, but would not capture runoff from the (southwest) side of the railroad. The basins would discharge at a low rate through a pipe roughly parallel to the railroad and eventually discharge into Dry Creek. However, at the time of preparation of this DEIR, no schedule had been set for implementation of this regional sheet flow flood hazard mitigation project. Other Types of Flooding Flooding can also occur as a result of catastrophic dam failure and the release of waters contained in upstream reservoirs. The specific plan area could be impacted if an upstream dam in the vicinity were to fail catastrophically. Although a very low probability event, catastrophic structural dam failure can be caused by earthquake or overflow. According to the City of Modesto, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan,13 failure of the New Melones Dam, which has a capacity of 2,420,000 acre-feet, could affect the project site.14 Regional mapping indicates that the inundation zone would just encroach on the northwestern portion of the project site. GROUNDWATER The project site is located within an area underlain by the Modesto Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin (as designated by the California Department of Water Resources).15 The sediments in the vicinity of Modesto are generally poorly sorted and derived from continental and marine sedimentary rocks (with some volcanic rocks) of the Coast Ranges.16 Groundwater occurs in the geologic materials underlying the site in discrete water-bearing zones or “aquifers.” Based on regional mapping, the depth to first groundwater is about 40 feet below the ground surface (bgs).17 Groundwater was encountered in geologic boring installed at the site in September 2004 at a depth of about 35 feet bgs.18 Groundwater flow in the vicinity of the project components is generally to the west and southwest toward the San Joaquin River. 13 City of Modesto, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Including Modesto Police Services, Modesto Fire Services, and the Modesto Contract Portion of Industrial Fire Protection District, September 2004. 14 Information regarding ownership and capacity of each dam based on California Department of Water Resources, Dams within the Jurisdiction of the State of California, Bulletin 17-88, October 1988. 15 California Department of Water Resources, 2005, website: http://www.sjd.water.ca.gov/groundwater/basin_maps/maps/turl_d00/index.cfm 16 Burow, K.R., Shelton, J.L., Dubrovsky, N.M., Occurrence of Nitrate and Pesticides in Ground Water beneath Three Agricultural Land-Use Settings in the Eastern San Joaquin Valley, California, 1993-1995, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigation Report 97-4284, 1998. 17 California Department of Water Resources, 2005, website: http://www.sjd.water.ca.gov/groundwater/basin_maps/maps/turl_d00/index.cfm 18 Kleinfelder, Inc, Soil Borings and Percolation Testing, Proposed Storm Basins, Future Roselle Neighborhood Development, Modesto, California, 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- SOURCE: Stantec, Turnstone Consulting Feet 0 2000 . IV.I.5 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Federal Emergency Management Agency In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising cost of taxpayer-funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The NFIP makes federally-backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. The NFIP is managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA is responsible for conducting floodplain studies and publishing Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) that delineate flood hazard areas. The City of Modesto is a participating community in the NFIP, and therefore all new development must comply with the minimum requirements of the NFIP. Regional Water Quality Control Board Water quality in surface and ground water bodies is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The project site is under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board which is responsible for implementation of applicable state and federal water quality protection guidelines. The implements the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan),19 a master policy document for managing water quality issues in the region. The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region. The proposed project may affect the volume and quality of storm water discharges. The following discussion describes how discharges are regulated by the and current water quality issues of concern that could be affected by the proposed project. Storm Water Discharges Runoff water quality is regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Nonpoint Source Program (established through the Federal Clean Water Act); the NPDES Nonpoint Source Program objective is to control and reduce pollutants to water bodies from nonpoint discharges. Locally, the NPDES program is administered by the The has conveyed responsibility for implementation of storm water regulations in the vicinity of the project components to the City of Modesto. The following nonpoint source NPDES permits are relevant to the City of Modesto and activities proposed by the project. 19 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, The Water Quality Control Plan (hereinafter referred to as the “Basin Plan”) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, The Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin (hereinafter referred to as the “Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan”)), 1998. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 General Construction Permit Projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the State Water Resources Control Board to be covered under the state NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction activity. The project proponent must propose control measures that are consistent with the State General Permit. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the General Permit. A should include Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction period. The area that would be disturbed under the proposed project exceeds one acre and therefore the project would be required to comply with the General Permit. Municipal Permit In compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act [CWA]), the City of Modesto has obtained a municipal permit under the NPDES for the management of storm water discharges. The municipal permit, which was issued by the requires that the City develop, administer, implement, and enforce a Comprehensive Storm Water Management Program Recent changes to the permit held by the City are detailed in Order No. R5-2003-0132, which amends Order No. R5-2002-0182. Compliance with the NPDES Permit is mandated by state and federal statutes and regulations. The City of Modesto must comply with the provisions of the permit by ensuring that new development and redevelopment mitigate water quality impacts to storm water runoff both during construction and operation periods of projects. As part of the the City has implemented a New Development Management Program, which has the goal of minimizing runoff pollution typically associated with land development. In January 2001, the program published the Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures. The manual presents extensive discussion and recommendations for BMPs to be incorporated into new development design and post-development monitoring for the protection of water quality. Rock Wells Storm water discharges, including discharges to rock wells, are regulated under the City’s municipal NPDES permit. The has determined that rock wells pose a potential threat to the shallow groundwater and, under the Order, has required that the City develop a rock well assessment plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the rock wells in protecting groundwater. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Specifically, the permit states: Due to the discharge of storm water to shallow groundwater through rock wells and the large number of these wells operated by the City of Modesto, this discharge represents a potential threat to groundwater quality. It is the intent of these requirements to quantify the magnitude of this threat, determine if historic discharge to groundwater has impacted groundwater and to minimize the discharge of pollutants to groundwater.20 The City of Modesto has completed the Rock Well Assessment Plan,21 but has not yet completed an evaluation report. A preliminary report will be submitted to the on or before March 2007.22 CITY OF MODESTO City of Modesto General Plan Policies Chapter V – Community Services - Storm Water 2. Storm Water Drainage Policies – Baseline Developed Area23 a. Two-thirds of the Baseline Developed Area is served by underground injection of urban runoff, commonly termed “rockwells.” New rockwells will be discouraged within the Baseline Developed Area. Instead, new storm drainage in the Baseline Developed Area shall be by means of positive storm drainage systems, unless the proposed service area is so isolated from surface waters that it is infeasible to provide positive drainage. b. The new storm drainage facilities shall consider the drainage facility requirements presented in Table 9-1 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report. This policy applies to both positive storm drainage systems, and to new rockwells (which are generally discouraged) in the Baseline Developed Area. c. The Modesto Irrigation District shall be consulted during the preparation of drainage studies required by this General Plan. d. The City of Modesto shall prevent water pollution from urban storm runoff as established by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board for surface discharges and Environmental Protection Agency for underground injection. e. Storm water drainage facilities shall be constructed, operated, maintained, and replaced in a manner that will provide the best possible service to the public, given 20 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Amended Order No. R5- 2002-0182, NPDES No. CAS083526, Waste Discharge Requirements for City of Modesto, Storm Water Discharge from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System, Stanislaus County, 2002. 21 Rock Well Assessment Plan. 22 Rivera, John, Environmental Compliance Supervisor, Operations and Maintenance Department, City of Modesto, personal communication with Bruce Abelli-Amen of BASELINE, December 8, 2005. 23 The City of Modesto’s Urban Area General Plan identifies the limits of the Baseline Developed Area and Planned Urbanizing Area. See Figure II-1, Growth Strategy Diagram, on p. II-8. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 the financial abilities and constraints of the City and of the private sector alike. In developing implementation plans, consideration shall be given to rehabilitation of existing facilities, remediation of developed areas with inadequate levels of drainage service, and the timely expansion of the system for future development. 3. Storm Water Drainage Policies – Planned Urbanizing Area a. All of the Storm Water Drainage Policies for the Baseline Developed Area apply within the Planned Urbanizing Area. b. The City of Modesto shall require each new development area to be served with positive storm drainage systems. A positive storm drainage system may be comprised of catch basins, pipelines, channels, recharge/detention basins and pumping facilities which discharge storm water to surface waters of the state. The positive storm drainage facilities shall consider the requirements presented in Table 9-1 of the Final Master Environmental Impact Report. c. The City of Modesto shall require positive storm drainage facilities in the Planned Urbanizing Area to accomplish storm water recharge to groundwater of 80 percent of the average annual runoff. Recharge shall be typically accomplished at recharge/detention basins, designed to be in compliance with applicable federal and state water quality regulations for both groundwater and surface water. The City shall update its Drainage Master Plan to cover the entire area within the City’s Sphere of Influence. d. New areas shall be designed so that runoff in excess of groundwater recharge in Policy 3.c. shall be discharged to waters of the state in a manner not exceeding the undeveloped storm hydrograph. e. Dual-use flood control/recreation facilities shall be developed (dual-use facilities) as part of the storm drainage system. Dual-use facilities maximize efficient use of land and funds by satisfying needs for water quality, flood control, recreation and aesthetics within a single consolidated facility. f. Dual-use facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the standards in the “Design Standards for Dual Use Flood Control/Recreation Facilities” manual. Chapter VI – Public Safety Issues – Flooding Hazards 2. Flood Hazard Policies – Baseline Developed Area When development is proposed on parcels located within any “Flood Potential Study Area” shown on Figure VI-2, the following policies apply: a. New urban development shall be approved only when the developer shows it to be protected from “100 year” floods. b. Existing urban development within areas subject to a “100 year” flood shall be provided with mitigation measures that offer protection from possible flooding. c. Undeveloped floodway and floodplain areas shall be preserved for non-urban use. d. Appropriate emergency plans for the safe evacuation of people from areas subject to inundation from dam failure shall be reviewed and periodically updated. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 3. Flood Hazard Policies – Planned Urbanizing Area a. All of the Flood Hazard Policies adopted for the Baseline Developed Area apply equally within the Planned Urbanizing Area. b. The Focused Environmental Impact Report, for any Comprehensive Planning District located within a “Flood Potential Study Area” on Figure VI-2, shall include a Flood Hazard Analysis developed to mitigate all of the Flood Hazard impacts identified in the Master Environmental Impact Report. c. The results of the Flood Hazard Analysis shall be incorporated into the project design of any Comprehensive Plan. City of Modesto Municipal Code The City of Modesto has adopted the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook for Construction as the standard for all municipal construction projects (Modesto Municipal Code 5-10.204(c)). Chapter 16 of the City of Modesto Standard Specifications, 2006 revision, outlines the basic storm water Best Management Practices (BMPs) that are required for all construction sites. The City requires the preparation of a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) for all municipal projects less than one acre in size. For projects greater than one acre, the developer shall obtain coverage from the for the project under the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (General Construction Permit), as described above. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Development of the proposed project would have a significant impact if it were to result in: An increase in the frequency and/or magnitude of flooding events at the site or in the region; Alteration of drainage patterns that could exacerbate flooding problems; Exposure of life and property to increased flood hazards as defined by the FEMA or other agencies; Substantial degradation of water quality, including violation of applicable water quality standards; Substantial interference with groundwater recharge or depletion of groundwater supplies. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The analysis of the significance of potential impacts to hydrologic conditions is based on review of conformance of the proposed project activities (during and following construction) with existing local, state, and federal laws and regulations regarding flooding hazards and protection of water quality. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact I.1. Construction activities could result in degradation of water quality in nearby surface water bodies by causing accidental spills and/or by reducing the quality of storm water runoff. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Groundbreaking and construction activities would occur under the proposed project. In general, construction, grading, and excavation results in exposure of soil to runoff, potentially causing erosion and entrainment of sediment in the runoff. Soil stockpiles and excavated areas would be exposed to runoff and, if not managed properly, the runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in drainage ditches, MID laterals, and/or receiving surface water bodies. The potential for chemical releases is present at most construction sites. Once released, substances such as fuels, oils, paints, and solvents could be transported to surface waters and/or groundwater in storm water runoff, wash water, and dust control water, potentially reducing the quality of the receiving waters. This is a potentially significant impact requiring mitigation. Mitigation Measure I.1 The project proponent shall prepare a for each development project under the Specific Plan (or one master for all development) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction period of all of the project components (whether or not the particular portion of the project disturbs more than one acre). The shall emphasize measures designed to minimize erosion and off-site sedimentation. It is not required that the be submitted to the but must be maintained on-site and made available to staff upon request. The shall include: Specific and detailed BMPs designed to mitigate construction-related pollutants. At minimum, BMPs shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water. The shall specify properly designed, centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain. An important component of the storm water quality protection effort is knowledge of the site supervisors and workers. To educate on-site personnel and maintain awareness of the importance of storm water quality protection, site supervisors shall conduct regular ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 tailgate meetings to discuss pollution prevention. The frequency of the meetings and required personnel attendance list shall be specified in the The shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather inspections. In addition, in accordance with State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2001-046, monitoring would be required during the construction period for pollutants that may be present in the runoff that are “not visually detectable in runoff.” The City staff shall review and approve project prior to developer obtaining a Grading and Building Permit. Project shall include and adequately address all elements in the State General construction Permit (Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Stormwater Runoff Associated with Construction Activity, State Water Resources Control Board Order Number 99-08-DWQ). BMPs designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to, soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales, and sediment basins. The potential for erosion is generally increased if grading is performed during the rainy season as disturbed soil can be exposed to rainfall and storm runoff. If grading must be conducted during the rainy season, the primary BMPs selected shall focus on erosion control; that is, keeping sediment on the site. End-of-pipe sediment control measures basins and traps) shall be used only as secondary measures. Entry and egress from the excavation area shall be carefully controlled to minimize off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash-down facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional during both dry and wet conditions. The City of Modesto Department of Public Works shall ensure that the is prepared prior to approval of the grading plan for each development project or each phase of a multi-phased development project. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the significance of this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact I.2. Operation-phase use of the site could result in degradation of water quality in receiving waters by reducing the quality of storm water runoff. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Proposed land uses at the project site would result in discharge of urban pollutants to storm water runoff. These pollutants include fuels, lubricants, fine sediments from tire wear, and fallout from exhaust, which will contribute petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and sediment to the pollutant load in runoff being transported to receiving waters. Runoff from landscaped areas at the site may contain residual pesticides and nutrients. Long-term degradation of water quality runoff from the site could impact water quality in the receiving waters. Runoff from the project site eventually enters the San Joaquin River, a water body that is listed as impaired by the The has designated the San Joaquin River as water quality impaired for boron, electrical conductivity (often referred to as salinity), several pesticides (chlorpyrifos, DDT, diazinon, and Group A pesticides), unknown toxicity, and selenium. If there ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 is a chance that the project could increase the load of any of these pollutants discharged to the river, then a significant impact would be expected to occur (the has determined that the assimilative capacity of the San Joaquin River for these pollutants has already been exceeded). The San Joaquin River has been identified as a Water Quality Limited Segment under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Most of the contaminants that have been identified as causing the water quality impairment of the San Joaquin River are associated with agriculture. Since the project would reduce the amount of land at the site in agricultural production, the loading of these pollutants would be expected to decrease relative to the existing condition. The pesticides chlorpyrifos, DDT, and diazinon, have been banned (except, in some cases, for agricultural use) and therefore would not be available for legal use at the project site. Selenium impairment has been caused by industrial point sources, agriculture, natural sources, and exotic species. None of these uses is proposed for the project site. This is a potentially significant impact requiring mitigation. Mitigation Measure I.2 The City shall ensure that development under the proposed project meets all the requirements of the current Municipal NPDES Permit (NPDES Permit No. R5-2003-0132 as amended by Order No. R5-2002-0182) for operation-phase water quality treatment. The drainage plan for each proposed development under the Specific Plan shall include features and operational BMPs to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality associated with operation of the project. The final design shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed development. In general, “passive,” low-maintenance BMPs grassy swales, porous pavements) are preferred over active filtering or treatment systems. An operations and maintenance plan shall be developed and implemented to inspect and maintain BMPs in perpetuity. The final design team for the development project shall review and incorporate as many concepts as practicable from the City’s Guidance Manual for New Development Stormwater Quality Control Measures, Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection and the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook, Development and Redevelopment. BMPs to be implemented by the developers within the plan area may include, but are not limited to, the BMPs described below for the construction and operation phases of the projects: ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 During the Construction Phase Erosion control BMPs may include preservation of existing vegetation, use of hydraulic mulch, hydroseeding, soil binders, earth dikes and drainage swales, velocity dissipation devices and implementation of channel bank stabilization techniques; Temporary sediment control BMPs may include use of silt fences, sediment traps, sediment basins, check dams, fiber rolls, and drainage inlet protection; During the Operation Phase Permanent operation-phase BMPs may include: minimization of directly connected impervious surfaces, use of permeable pavements or unit pavers, grassy bioswales, stormwater planters, covering of refuse handling areas, stenciling drainage inlets, wet ponds, and detention basins. At a minimum, runoff from all components of the project shall receive some level of treatment prior to discharging to the detention basins. Runoff would then be detained in the basins prior to being pumped into the Modesto Irrigation District’s canal. The City Public Works Department shall review and approve each design-level drainage plan for proposed developments under the Specific Plan prior to approval of the grading plan. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the significance of this impact to a less-than- significant level. Impact I.3. Implementation of the project could alter drainage patterns at the site potentially exceeding the capacity of existing conveyances and causing localized flooding. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious cover and redirect surface runoff relative to existing drainage patterns. Under the existing conditions, approximately two percent of the surface area is covered with impervious surfaces (based on aerial photograph interpretation). Under the full build-out of the proposed project, the site would be covered with approximately 67 percent impervious surfaces.24 This represents a potentially significant increase in impervious cover that, if unmitigated, could increase the volume and rate of runoff from the site. The City of Modesto retained a hydraulic engineering firm and performed in-house analysis to evaluate the drainage plan proposed by the project. Engineering analysis indicates that to adequately contain runoff associated with a 100-year storm event, a detention basin with a capacity of 84 acre-feet would be required.25 The project proposes the use of two detention basins: a central basin which would detain the 100-year runoff event for the northeastern and 24 Stantec, City of Modesto Tivoli Specific Plan, Storm Drainage Assessment, January 2006. 25 City of Modesto, Tivoli Drainage Report, memorandum from Violet Jakab, Senior Engineer, City of Modesto Public Works, July 3, 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.15 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 central portions of the site (approximately 385 acres) and a westerly basin system for the southwestern portion of the site (approximately 95 acres).26 The central basin would be designed to detain 69 acre feet of runoff and the westerly basin(s) would detain up to 15 acre feet (for a total of 84 acre feet). Flows from the westerly basin would be pumped into the central basin with a single pump station, and from the central basin the runoff would be pumped into the MID Main Canal (at a rate up to 5.0 cubic feet per second (cfs)). Collected runoff in the basins would evaporate, infiltrate into the subsurface, and/or be discharged to the MID Main Canal using a pump station and force main. Discharges to the MID Main Canal would be limited to five cubic feet per second. The MID has not yet agreed to accept these discharges, but the City believes that MID is likely to accept them. The proposed project drainage system would not function as designed unless this discharge to the MID Main Canal is approved. Mitigation Measure I.3a As a condition of approval of the final grading and drainage plans for the first project proposed in the plan area, the developer must acquire written approval from the MID to discharge runoff to the MID Main Canal (up to 5.0 cfs), and provide this documentation to the City of Modesto Public Works Department. If this first project, or any subsequent projects, propose to use some alternative stormwater drainage design that does not require discharge to the MID Main Canal, then additional supplemental CEQA review shall be conducted for these projects. Should MID not approve discharge to its facility an alternative design may include infiltration trenches at the bottom of the proposed ponds in combination with retention and/or retention of a higher volume (100-yr 6-day) frequency storm runoff. This design may increase the size of the detention basin(s), thus requiring additional land to be utilized for drainage, land that otherwise would be occupied by structures or parking. Mitigation Measure I.3b As a condition of approval of the final grading and drainage plans for all projects proposed within the plan area it must be demonstrated through detailed hydraulic analysis that implementation of the proposed drainage plans will: Include adequately sized detention facilities to accommodate anticipated runoff associated with the 100-year storm event. A licensed professional engineer shall prepare the final drainage plan for the project and plans must be submitted to the City of Modesto Public Works for review and approval. Include drainage components that are designed in compliance with City of Modesto standards. The grading and drainage plans shall be reviewed for compliance with these requirements by the Department of Public Works; and 26 Based on gross acres to centerline of perimeter arterials. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.16 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Establish a funding mechanism for maintenance and annual inspections of the detention basin, drainage ditches, and drainage inlets. Any accumulation of sediment or other debris shall be removed. An annual report documenting the inspection and any remedial action conducted shall be submitted to the City of Modesto Public Works Department for review. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts associated with increased peak runoff volumes to a less-than-significant level. Impact I.4. Implementation of the project could place people and housing within an area subject to sheet flooding. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The project site is within a broad, relatively flat area that is subject to sheet flow-type flooding. As recently as 1998, portions of the site were inundated by this sheet flow phenomenon. The proposed northeast regional flood control solution, which consists of constructing four detention basins upstream, has not been scheduled for implementation and therefore cannot be relied upon as mitigation for the purposes of this DEIR. Under ultimate development conditions, the area upslope of the project will likely be developed (this upslope area is referred to as the Roselle Claribel development area). Development at the Roselle/Claribel area would be required to provide drainage improvement to detain runoff generated within its own development area boundaries. This would substantially reduce the quantity of upstream flows that reach the Tivoli Specific Plan area. Similar to the proposed northeast regional flood control solution, this off-site development cannot be relied upon as mitigation for the purposes of this DEIR. Placement of residential and commercial land uses in an area subject to flooding is a significant impact requiring mitigation. Mitigation Measure I.4 The Tivoli Specific Plan project proponent shall: Design and construct the proposed on-site development so that the sheetflow flooding generated from the upstream watershed that can occur in the region will be safely passed through the proposed development. These flows shall be contained within the streets and be dispersed on the side of the project site in a manner that does not concentrate or increase flows, ensuring that the potential for increased erosion or flooding is minimized. Ensure that finished floor elevations of all residential, commercial, and industrial structures be a minimum of one foot above the elevation of 100-year sheetflow flooding. Contribute their fair share of the cost to design and construct the proposed northeast flood control solution. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.17 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The City Public Works Department shall review and approve the proposed design-level sheetflow routing solutions prior to approval of any grading plans for proposed development projects under the Specific Plan. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the significance of this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact I.5. Implementation of the proposed project could place housing in a FEMA- designated floodplain. (Less than Significant) The project would not result in any FEMA-designated floodplain encroachment, and therefore potential impacts associated with an increase in base flood elevations would not be expected. This is a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. Impact I.6. Implementation of the proposed project could place new development within an area potentially subject to dam failure inundation. (Less than Significant) The specific plan area could be impacted if the New Melones Dam were to fail catastrophically. The New Melones Dam is located on the Stanislaus River and operated by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The New Melones Dam is under the jurisdiction of the federal government (the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation). Existing dams under state and federal jurisdiction are periodically inspected to ensure that they are adequately maintained and to direct the owner to correct any identified deficiencies. Regular inspections and required maintenance of the dams substantially reduce the potential for catastrophic failure. This is a less than significant impact. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. Impact I.7. Implementation of the project could result in depletion of groundwater resources. (Less than Significant) Under existing conditions the project site has little impervious cover (approximately two percent). However, approximately 74 percent of the site is covered by soils that are characterized as having “slow” to “very slow” permeability. Low permeability soils would not be expected to allow substantial deep infiltration and groundwater recharge to occur during storm events. The proposed project would increase the amount of impervious cover (to approximately 67 percent) which, if unmitigated, could reduce the minor amount groundwater recharge that occurs at the site. However, the project proposes to construct a centralized detention basin and a westerly basin system that would retain and infiltrate part of the runoff. Construction of this detention basin would remove the low permeability surface soils, and expose higher permeability ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.18 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 subsoils in addition to providing infiltration trenches. These subsoils range in composition from silty sand to clean sand and gravel.27 Runoff would be directed into the detention basin and under hydrostatic pressure, infiltrate preferentially into the exposed higher permeability zones exposed in the basin bottom and sidewalls. Construction and operation of the central detention basin and the westerly basin system is expected to offset the relatively minor losses to groundwater recharge associated with the increased impervious coverage proposed by the project. The project could deplete local groundwater resources if it proposed to increase local groundwater extraction. The project does not propose to increase groundwater extraction relative to existing conditions. Therefore, no depletion of local resources is expected associated with groundwater pumping. This is a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. Impact I.8. Existing water supply wells within the Specific Plan area, if not properly managed or decommissioned, could be damaged during construction, potentially allowing impacts to groundwater quality. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Based on observations made during a field reconnaissance conducted by BASELINE Environmental, there are likely numerous water supply wells located within the Specific Plan area that serve the existing residences and agricultural operations. If any of the wells were not fitted with effective sanitary seals upon construction, or if any seals have been damaged since installation or were to be damaged during grading and construction for the any of the projects under the Specific Plan, surface water (potentially containing pollutants) could seep into the wells and the underlying aquifer, causing water quality degradation. Mitigation Measure I.8 Prior to approval of a grading plan for development of a particular parcel of the Specific Plan area, a well survey shall be conducted to determine the location and characteristics of each well for that particular parcel. The survey shall be conducted and documented by a State-registered geologist or engineer, and the results submitted to the City for review. The water supply wells shall either be: 1. Properly abandoned in compliance with the California Department of Water Resources, California Well Standards and Stanislaus County Code, Chapter 9.36 prior to final approval of the grading plan, or 27 Kleinfelder, Inc., Soil Borings and Percolation Testing, Proposed Storm Basins, Future Roselle Neighborhood Development, Modesto, California, 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation I. Hydrology and Water Quality Turnstone Consulting IV.I.19 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 2. Inspected by a qualified professional to determine whether each well is properly sealed at the surface to prevent infiltration of water-borne contaminants into the well casing or surrounding gravel pack. The California Well Standards require an annular surface seal of at least 20 feet. If any of the wells are found not to comply with this requirement, the applicant shall retain a qualified well driller to install the required seal. Documentation of the inspections and seal installations, if any, shall be provided to the City prior to final approval of the grading plan. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the level of significance of this impact to a less- than-significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.J.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 J. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY This section describes the Tivoli Specific Plan Project’s (project) geologic environment based on the City of Modesto Initial Study for the Tivoli Specific Plan Project, published and unpublished geologic reports and maps, and site-specific technical reports. The Initial Study has determined that issues of strong ground shaking, soil erosion, and loss of topsoil will be less-than-significant impacts (see Appendix Further, the Initial Study has determined that there are no impacts related to seismically-induced fault rupture, liquefaction, landslides or inadequate soils for septic tank or alternative method waste disposal. These issues are not further discussed in this section. Potentially significant impacts related to differential settlement, unstable and expansive soils are addressed. Mitigation measures for the identified significant impacts are provided, as appropriate. Further discussion of geology, soils and seismicity impacts is presented in the near- term wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING This section describes the existing geologic and soils conditions of the project and the vicinity and associated hazards. GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS Geology The project site is located in the central portion of the Great Valley Geomorphic Province of California, an alluvial plain about 50 miles wide and 400 miles long. The Great Valley is a deep structural basin that has been slowing filling with sediment nearly continuously for about 160 million years.1 These sediments consist of continental sedimentary rocks and alluvial deposits.2 The Great Valley is bounded on the east by the Sierra-Nevada and on the west by the Coast Range mountains. More specifically, the site is located at the northern end of the San Joaquin Valley, an alluvial valley and plain developed along the San Joaquin River and its tributaries. Regionally, the project area is underlain by Quaternary-aged poorly sorted clay, silt, sand and gravel.3 Topography and Soils The approximately 454-acre project site is relatively flat, with an overall slope to the southwest of about 0.2 percent. The existing ground surface elevation varies from about 110 feet above mean 1 California Geographic Survey, 2002, California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36. 2 California Geographic Survey, Geologic Map of California, 2002. 3 California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map of the San Joaquin Valley, California, 1969. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation J. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.J.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 sea level (msl) to about 100 feet msl. No open creek or stream channels cross the site; however, an aqueduct bisects the project site.4 Surface soils at the project site are mapped by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) as Dinuba Sandy Loam (DrA), Hanford Sandy Loam (HdpA), Madera Sandy Loam (MdA), Modesto Sandy Loam (MoA), Modesto Clay Loam (Mma) and Meikle Clay (MkA). Figure IV.J.1 shows the on-site soils distribution. The Madera Sandy Loam, Modesto Sandy Loam, Modesto Clay Loam and Meikle Clay are rated as ‘Very Limited’ for small commercial construction due to linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential). All have a low corrosion rating for concrete and all are highly corrosive to steel except Hanford, which is moderately corrosive.5 Geologic Hazards Expansive Soils Expansion and contraction of volume can occur when expansive soils undergo alternating cycles of wetting (swelling) and drying (shrinking). As a consequence of such volume changes, structural damage to building and infrastructure may occur if the potentially expansive soils were not considered in project design and during construction. The NRCS rates some of the project’s soils as ‘Very Limited’ and as subject to linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential). Regional mapping indicates the risk of expansive soils for the project area to be moderate to high; therefore, the risk of expansive soils at the project site should be considered to be moderate to high unless site-specific investigations determine otherwise.6 A site-specific Preliminary Geotechnical Comments document was prepared for the northwestern 80 acres of the project site.7 That document notes that materials from six borings (ranging from about 16 to about 40 feet in depth) varied considerably. Alternating layers of medium stiff to stiff sandy clayey silt and silty sandy clay and loose to medium dense silty clayey sand were encountered at depths from the surface to approximately 4.5 feet. Below this to about 11 feet, partly cemented hard sandy silt and very dense silty and clayey sand were encountered in most borings. Below these materials, the deeper soils consisted of alternating layers of stiff to hard sandy and clayey silt and loose relatively clean sand. Free groundwater was encountered at depths of approximately 32 to 35 feet below ground surface (bgs). 4 United States Geological Survey, 1969 revised 1987, Riverbank Quadrangle 7.5´ Topographic Map. 5 Natural Resources Conservation Service website, NCSS Web Soil Survey 1.1 for Eastern Stanislaus Area, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app accessed December 19, 2005. 6 Ibid. 7 Kleinfelder, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Comments for Proposed Vintner’s Square Commercial Center, Modesto, California, File No. 49663.G02, April 5, 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- SOURCE: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Turnstone Consulting N 0 1200 FEET MdA HdpA HdpA MdA DrA MkA MmA MoA MoA MmA MkA DrA HANFORD SANDY LOAM MADERA SANDY LOAM DINUBA SANDY LOAM MEIKLE CLAY MODESTO CLAY LOAM MODESTO LOAM Legend TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN AREA IV.J.3 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation J. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.J.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Settlement and Differential Settlement Differential settlement or subsidence could occur if buildings or other improvements were built on low-strength foundation materials (including imported fill) or if improvements straddle the boundary between different types of subsurface materials a boundary between native material and fill, or dissimilar soil types). Although differential settlement generally occurs slowly enough that its effects are not dangerous to inhabitants, it can cause significant building damage over time. Portions of the project that contain loose or uncontrolled (non-engineered) fill may be susceptible to differential settlement. The area of the project site has been primarily agricultural, involving plowing and disking of the surface layers. Some structures have been abandoned and/or will likely be demolished as new development is introduced. Old wells, wallows and temporary ditches or excavations may have occurred on the project site; hence, it is possible that casual or non-engineered fill may be present on the site.8,9,10,11 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Federal Emergency Management Agency The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides emergency relief to victims of natural disasters such as earthquakes and landslides. However, FEMA has not established federal regulations that would limit geologic hazard liabilities.12 State of California The State of California has adopted the Uniform Building Code (UBC), which establishes construction standards intended to minimize loss of life in earthquakes (Title 24, California Code of Regulations). State regulations require that each city and county similarly adopt the UBC and any amendments adopted by the state.13 The UBC plus California amendments comprise the California Building Code (CBC). The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA, Public Resources Code Section 2761, et seq.) require local government to consider the impacts of new development on the availability of 8 PHASE ONE, Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for APN 083-03-04 (2421 Mable Avenue), Stanislaus County, California, for Bill Henry, HA Development, Project No. 6166, March 11, 2005. 9 Environmental Safety Services, Environmental Site Assessment of 2421 Mable Avenue, Modesto, California, for Duke Leffler, PMZ Commercial Real Estate, April 21, 2005. 10 Environmental Safety Services, Environmental Site Assessment of 2444 Mable Avenue, Modesto, California, for Duke Leffler, PMZ Commercial Real Estate, April 21, 2005. 11 Environmental Safety Services, Environmental Site Assessment of 2601 Sylvan Avenue, Modesto, California, for Duke Leffler, PMZ Commercial Real Estate, April 21, 2005. 12 City of Modesto, Modesto General Plan Master EIR Update, 2003. 13 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation J. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.J.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 mineral resources. There are no areas mapped as MRZ-2a or MRZ-2b (areas where information or data indicate that significant mineral resources do or may exist) within the project site.14 The Field Act of 1933 provides for the establishment of a procedure to be followed in the design and construction or alteration of school buildings used for public or private elementary, secondary or community college purposes. Principal provisions of this act are as follows:15 1. Plans must be prepared by a qualified person who knows the principles of structural engineering. 2. Designs must be checked by an independent state agency and design errors or omissions be corrected on plans before contract for construction is let. 3. Construction must be continuously inspected by a qualified person in the employment of the school board. 4. The responsible architect or structural engineer shall supervise the work. 5. All concerned parties must file verified reports that approved plans were complied with in construction of the school building. CITY OF MODESTO City of Modesto General Plan Policies Chapter VI – Public Safety – Seismic and Geologic Hazards Seismic and Geological Hazard Policies16 Although the Modesto Urban Area is relatively free from recent seismic activity compared to areas closer to coastal locations, the Uniform Building Code places all of California in Seismic Risk Zone 3, which means that all new structures must be designed to resist collapse in an intensity VIII earthquake.17 a. The City shall continue to use building codes as the primary tool for reducing seismic risk to structures. The Uniform Building Code (UBC), which has been adopted by Modesto, Stanislaus County and the other cities in the County, is intended to ensure 14 California Division of Mines and Geology, Mineral Land Classification Map of Central Stanislaus County, California, 1993. 15 State of California, (1933 revised 1986) Education Code section 39140-39157, 81130-81147, et. al. 16 The City of Modesto’s Urban Area General Plan identifies the limits of the Baseline Developed Area and Planned Urbanizing Area. 17 Modified Mercalli Intensity VIII earthquakes are defined as ground movements that affect the steering of motor cars; that do damage to masonry C buildings leading to partial collapse; that do some damage to masonry B buildings; that do damage to masonry A buildings; that result in the fall of stucco and some masonry walls; that result in the twisting and eventual fall of chimneys, factory stacks, monuments, towers, and elevated tanks; that result in frame houses moving off foundations if not bolted down; that result in loose panel walls being thrown out, that result in decayed pilings being broken off; that result in branches broken from trees; that result in changes in flow or temperature of springs and wells; and that result in cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation J. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.J.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 that buildings resist major earthquakes of the intensity of or severity of the strongest experience in California, without collapse, but with some structural as well as nonstructural damage. In most structures, it is expected that structural damage could be limited to repairable damage, even in a major earthquake. b. The City shall continue to require all new buildings in the City to be built under the seismic requirements of the UBC, 1979 (or subsequent) editions. c. The City of Modesto shall continue to explore measures to induce building owners to upgrade and retrofit structures to render them seismically safe. City of Modesto Planning Department Requirements18 a. City requirements are based on the California Building Code (CBC-2001), which is a California-specific version of the UBC. Geotechnical Investigation Reports are required if soil bearing capacity is in excess of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). b. Geotechnical Investigations must be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer. c. Plans must be approved and accepted by a City of Modesto Building Department Plan Checker. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The Initial Study has determined that potential impacts related to seismically-induced fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, liquefaction, substantial soil erosion and topsoil loss, landslides or inadequate soils for septic tank or alternative method waste disposal are less than significant without mitigation. Therefore, potential impacts associated with these potential geologic hazards are not further discussed in this section. For the purposes of this analysis, the project would result in a significant impact if it would: Expose structures and/or other improvements to potential substantial adverse effects of unstable soils, including expansive soils and soils susceptible to differential settlement. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact J.1. Structures or property at the project could be adversely affected by expansive soils or by settlement of project soils. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) 18 City of Modesto, 2005, as advised by Lyn Jordan, Associate Civil Engineer, Plan Check and Building Inspection, Planning Department. Geotechnical Report Requirements are a matter of Planning Department policy, though not codified by City of Modesto regulation (per Paul Liu, Associate Planner, City of Modesto, personal communication with Ralph Russell, Environmental Specialist, BASELINE Environmental Consulting, December 20, 2005). ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation J. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.J.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Soils underlying portions of the entire Project site have moderate to high shrink/swell potential.19 This condition could significantly damage structures and utilities. In addition, non-uniformly compacted imported fill placed at the site that could experience settlements under new structural loads. Structural damage, warping, and cracking of roads and other infrastructure, and rupture of utility lines may occur if the potential expansive soils and the nature of the imported fill were not considered during design and construction of improvements. The Preliminary Geotechnical Comments document recommends that conventional spread, or continuous footings, or concrete slab-on-grade foundation and/or floor systems may be used so long as appropriate soil and site preparation, such as mechanical compaction or ‘over-excavation’ and the introduction of engineered fill, is used in the construction process. It is also noted that if clay soils are present within two feet of any final building pad grade, then damage may occur related to expansive soil, and appropriate engineering for expansive soil conditions should be used.20 Mitigation Measure J.1 In locations underlain by expansive soils and/or non-engineered fill, the designers of foundations and improvements (including sidewalks, roads, and utilities) shall consider these conditions. The design-level geotechnical investigation, to be prepared by licensed professionals and approved by the City Building Department, shall include measures to ensure potential damages related to expansive soils and non-uniformly compacted fill are minimized. Mitigation options may range from removal of the problematic soils and replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and compacted fill, to design and construction of improvements to withstand the forces exerted during the expected shrink-swell cycles and settlements. All mitigation measures, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the geotechnical and soils report shall be followed to reduce impacts associated with shrink-swell soils to a less-than- significant level. Impact J.2. Differential settlement at the project site could result in damage to project buildings and other improvements. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Grading the project site before buildings and utilities are constructed would result in areas of cut and fill. Fills of different thickness and fills adjacent to cut areas where native soils are exposed at the surface could create the potential for differential settlement. If the settlement is not uniform, structural damage could occur. Buried utilities may also experience differential settlement along their alignments. 19 Natural Resources Conservation Service website, NCSS Web Soil Survey 1.1 for Eastern Stanislaus Area, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app, accessed December 19, 2005. 20 Kleinfelder, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Comments for Proposed Vintner’s Square Commercial Center, Modesto, California, File No. 49663.G02, April 5, 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation J. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.J.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Uncompacted and loose fill and existing casual and historic fill could be subject to varying rates of compaction and settlement compared to the native undisturbed soil. Structures built over discontinuous materials of varying densities and compactness may be subject to stress or damage due to differential settlement. Mitigation Measure J.2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a site-specific grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City Building Department for review and approval. The plan shall include specific recommendations for mitigating potential settlement associated with fill placement and areas of different fill thickness. This mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 K. COMMUNITY SERVICES The project site is currently under the jurisdiction of Stanislaus County. Police services are provided by the County Sheriff and fire services are provided by the Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District. The project includes annexation of the project site into the City of Modesto. Therefore, the Community Services section describes existing police and fire services in Stanislaus County and the City of Modesto. This section describes the changes that would affect these County and City services upon annexation of the proposed project area, and evaluates the project’s impacts on these services. This section is based on available site information, a review of the 2003 Modesto Urban Area General Plan, the 2003 Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, and information gathered from telephone conversations and e-mail communications with the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, the Stanislaus County Consolidated Fire Protection District, and the City of Modesto’s Police and Fire Departments. This section is organized by service, with Setting and Impacts discussions for each service. POLICE SETTING Stanislaus County The Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department currently provides law enforcement services to approximately 100,000 people over an approximately 1,520-square-mile area.1 The Sheriff’s Department has local agreements with all the municipal and state police agencies within the county for mutual aid. The Sheriff’s Department serves the proposed project area and its vicinity, beyond the existing Modesto city limit, from the Sheriff’s Operations Center at 250 E. Hackett Road in the City of Modesto. The project site is in Beat Area 2. This area includes all land beyond the existing Modesto City limit from Carver Road to the eastern edge of the community of Empire and from the Tuolumne River north to the San Joaquin County line.2 The Sheriff’s Department is authorized for 414 sworn and non-sworn officers. Currently, 215 sworn and 178 non-sworn officers are on staff. There is currently a ratio of 0.786 patrol deputies for every 1,000 citizens, which allows for an average response time of approximately 8.34 1 The service area includes all of unincorporated Stanislaus County, including unincorporated islands within the City of Modesto, and the cities of Patterson, Riverbank, Hughson, and Waterford. 2 Lieutenant Rob Jackson, Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, responses to Turnstone Community Services questionnaire, including explanatory material, January 26, 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 minutes for Priority One calls (defined as calls concerning crimes in progress), 9.27 minutes for Priority Two calls, and 11.19 minutes for Priority Three calls.3,4 City of Modesto In 2004, approximately 210,000 Modesto residents received Modesto Police Department (MPD) law enforcement services,5 up from 187,000 in 1999-2000.6 The MPD has a total of 367 officers. Currently, there are 262 sworn officers, assigned to various units and divisions, and the MPD has authorization for 275 sworn officer positions. There are an additional 105 non-sworn officers, though it has authorization for 108; 38 of these officers are authorized Community Service officers.7 The MPD is funded by the City General Fund through a yearly budget process. The MPD consists of three divisions: Operations, Investigations, and Support. Some of the programs that constitute the services provided by the MPD are 24-hour Patrol Services, Investigative Services, Information Services, Traffic Enforcement, Property Crimes, Crime Prevention and Public Relations, Records, Youth Services, Volunteer Units, and Dispatch. The Operations Division provides the bulk of the daily law enforcement, with personnel divided into four shifts per 24-hour period. The MPD maintains patrol cars, or “beats,” on City streets at any given time. Patrol detail is structured to allow for fluctuation with changes in demand. In addition, the MPD responds to requests from other agencies outside the City limits when necessary, including requests from the Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department and the California Highway Patrol. The MPD operates from two main facilities: the Gerald L. McKinsey Modesto Police Complex at 600 10th Street and the Police Operations Building at 601 11th Street. The MPD currently serves the 36.2-square-mile area of the incorporated City of Modesto. In addition, four command areas operate from local facilities. These local facilities are strategically located throughout the City to improve the quality of community life and to improve citizen-police relations by effectively communicating a police presence. However, all core police services – patrol and field services, 3 Ibid. 4 Priority 1 calls include robbery, homicide, and kidnap; Priority 2 calls include prowlers, domestic disturbances, and alarms; and Priority 3 calls include public nuisance, grand theft, and trespassing. 5 Captain Joel Broumas, Modesto Police Department, e-mail communication with Turnstone Consulting, December 30, 2005. 6 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, March 2003, p. V-13-1. 7 Community Service officers perform a variety of non-Peace Officer field and office law enforcement tasks including parking enforcement and traffic control, evidence and fingerprint collection, photography, non-injury traffic accident investigation, abandoned vehicle abatement, coordinating neighborhood watch activities, making public presentations, processing narcotics, taking telephone reports, and providing general staff support to Police Department staff. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 investigative service, and support services – are based at the main police complex at 600 10th Street. The area command office for northeast Modesto is located at 3705 Oakdale Road immediately west of the project site. The project site is contiguous to Beats 75 and 76 of the Northeast Area Command. The MPD patrol area for the northeast portion of the City is bounded by McHenry Avenue on the west, Dry Creek on the south, and North Santa Fe Avenue/Santa Fe Railway Railroad on the east. The northern boundary of the patrol area is defined from east to west by Sylvan Avenue, Oakdale Road and Claratina Avenue. The patrol area also includes the recently opened James C. Enochs High School on the north side of Sylvan Avenue immediately east of the project site. The MPD responds to emergency calls related to crimes in progress, threats to public safety, traffic accidents and other urgent requests. The response rate is determined by the number of full-time police personnel per 1,000 citizens and varies by type of incoming call. The current officer to population ratio is 1.25 officers per 1,000 residents with a proposed increase to 1.3 per 1,000 in January 2007.8 In 2005, approximately 135,000 calls received by the Modesto Police Department were assigned case numbers.9 The actual numbers of citizen contacts are significantly higher since not all calls generate a case number.10 Calls reporting crimes in progress (Priority 1P) receive the highest priority and the quickest response. The majority of other calls report crimes that have just occurred and/or situations where a police unit is needed as soon as possible. At the current ratio of 1.25 full-time police personnel per 1,000 citizens, the department is able to answer Priority 1P calls within 4.42 minutes and all other calls within approximately 33 minutes.11 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Policies of the Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the Modesto Urban Area General Plan are discussed below. LAFCO policies are relevant because they govern the City of Modesto’s annexation of unincorporated County lands. Modesto Urban Area General Plan policies are relevant because they govern existing City land. Upon fulfillment of LAFCO annexation requirements, Stanislaus County General Plan goals and policies would no longer apply and Modesto Urban Area General Plan policies would be applicable. 8 Captain Joel Broumas, Modesto Police Department, e-mail communication with Turnstone Consulting, December 30, 2005. 9 Captain Joel Broumas, Modesto Police Department, e-mail communication with Turnstone Consulting, January 18, 2006. 10 Ibid. 11 Captain Joel Broumas, Modesto Police Department, e-mail communication with Turnstone Consulting, December 30, 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission LAFCO oversees the annexation of unincorporated lands to the City under the provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.). LAFCO is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, conducting special studies that review ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure, and preparing a Sphere of Influence for each city and special district within each county. The Commission's efforts are directed to seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected. Under Government Code Section 56668, LAFCO is required to consider the need for police services before approving any annexation to the City. Prior to annexation, the applicant is required to submit a plan for service demonstrating that the area will have adequate police service. This plan must provide evidence that, at the minimum, the current range and level of services provided to the proposed annexation area will be maintained. City of Modesto Chapter III, Community Development, and Chapter V, Community Services and Facilities, of the Modesto Urban Area General Plan delineate goals related to the provision of adequate police services. Policies furthering these goals that are relevant to the proposed project include the following: Community Development Policy III-D.d: Each Comprehensive Plan should include a long- range financing strategy which provides reasonable estimates of the costs of on- and off-site infrastructure to support the proposed development pattern. The strategy should generally address public facility funding, including schools, for any development project which serves to implement the subject Comprehensive Plan. If new public facilities are required which will also serve the broader community, the Comprehensive Plan should include options for broad-based funding mechanisms. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-J.2.a: The City of Modesto should maintain an adequate personnel level to organize patrol areas and provide investigative responses, to achieve a comfortable and safe community climate conducive to a high quality of life, and to maintain an active and growing commercial and business environment. To the maximum economic extent feasible, police operations should include proactive law enforcement and administrative efforts, all to be expanded as the City’s population grows. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-J.2.c: The City of Modesto should strive to provide sworn officers in sufficient numbers to support basic police services consistent with other progressive departments with comparable population and demographic statistics. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-J.2.d: The City of Modesto should strive to provide civilian staff in sufficient numbers to support sworn staff and to support continuing civilization of services such as Crime Prevention, Investigative Support, Crime Scene Investigation, Accident Reports, and other documentation of incidents. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 POLICE SERVICE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Significance Criteria For the purpose of this EIR, the City of Modesto recognizes impacts as significant if the project would result in an increased demand for police services that cannot be adequately met by existing or budgeted police facilities. Effects of the Proposed Project Upon annexation, the Modesto Police Department would provide the full range of police services to the proposed project site, and the Stanislaus County 911 Center would identify the project site as an official reporting district. Impact K.1. Development of the proposed project site would result in an increased demand for Modesto Police Department officer hours due to the potential for increased on-site criminal activity and increased number of traffic incidents near the site. (Less than Significant) Upon annexation, the Modesto Police Department (MPD) would include the proposed project site as part of Beat 76 of the Northeast Area Command. The MPD would respond to all reported incidents at the proposed project site from the main police complex at 600 10th Street. The development of the proposed project site is expected to increase Modesto’s population by up to 9,269 people by 2017. In order to maintain the current response times, the MPD would require approximately 12 additional officers based on the current ratio of 1.25 officers per 1,000 residents, Implementation of the proposed project would result in the expenditure of more officer-hours responding to an increased number of calls and traffic incidents. The increase in officer hours would not result in the need for the expansion of the main police complex or other police facilities, or in the construction of any new police-related infrastructure. Compliance with Modesto Urban Area General Plan policies, specifically Policy III-D.1.d, which calls for the development of a long-range financing strategy for each Comprehensive Plan Area, would allow the City to allocate the necessary funds to extend police service with additional police personnel and equipment, as needed, into the Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District including the proposed project site. Therefore, the impact on police services as a result of the proposed project would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 FIRE SETTING Stanislaus County The Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District currently provides emergency fire services to the project site and surrounding area outside Modesto city limits. The has six fire stations, with a separate facility at 3705 Oakdale Road in the City of Modesto functioning as the administrative headquarters. The project site is currently in the service area of Fire Station No. 36, located approximately 5 miles northwest of the project site at 3318 Topeka Street in the city of Riverbank. Backup is provided by Fire Station No. 31, located at 461 Mitchell Road in Modesto, approximately 4 miles south of the project site. The response time for all incidents within the urban areas of its service area is approximately 6 minutes. The has a full-time staff of 39 employees and 23 volunteers. The maintains eight Type I engines, four Type III engines and two Type IV engines,12 two rescue boats, three water tender vehicles, and one hazardous material unit. Its 195-square-mile service area is defined by zones, with 25 percent of its service area defined as urban and the remainder as rural or wildland. Zone 1 (urban) locations have a water supply that provides 500-plus gallons per minute, while Zone 2 (rural/wildland) locations have a water supply that provides less than 500-plus gallons per minute. The also provides Fire Safety and Basic Life Support (BLS) as first responders over its full service area. Advanced Life Support (ALS) is provided by various ambulance companies, including American Medical Response, Oak Valley Hospital District Ambulance service, and the Hughson Paramedic Ambulance Company.13 In 2005 the responded to 2,800 incidents. Roughly 15 percent of all incidents were fire- related, 62 percent were emergency medical service and/or rescue-related, and the remaining 23 percent consisted of public assistance, hazardous conditions responses, and false alarms, among other items.14 The responded to all fire-related incidents in both urban and rural areas in approximately 11 minutes. In 2005 the responded to approximately 11 fire-related calls, 8 emergency medical service and/or rescue-related calls, and 8 public assistance calls, hazardous 12 The difference between fire engines is based on a variety of criteria, including number of feet of ladder, number of feet of hose, hose diameter, maneuverability, and pumping capacity. These differences result in Type I engines being the primary engine for structure fires, with each grade down to Type IV engines being more appropriate for fighting wildfires. 13 Chief Steve Mayotte, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District, e-mail communication with Turnstone Consulting, January 4, 2006 and January 24, 2006. 14 Chief Steve Mayotte, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District, e-mail communication with Turnstone Consulting, January 4, 2006 and January 24, 2006. Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District Incident Report Summary for 2005 is on file with the City of Modesto. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 conditions responses, and false alarms, among other items within the area of the proposed project.15 The has entered into master and day-to-day mutual aid agreements with all regional fire agencies. In addition, the has automatic aid agreements with the following adjoining fire agencies: Oakdale City Fire Department, the Oakdale Rural Fire District, the California Division of Forestry – Tuolumne/Calaveras Unit, the Denair Fire District, the Hughson Fire Protection District, the Ceres Emergency Services (which includes the Ceres Fire Protection District and the Industrial Fire Protection District), and the Modesto Fire Department. Fire protection classifications are designated by the State Insurance Services Office (ISO). The ISO considers three primary factors in their rating system: fire department location, personnel, and equipment (50 percent); water supply and fire flow capacity (40 percent); and communications capabilities (10 percent). Ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the best possible protection. Due to the geography and demographics of the District, the has been assigned two different ISO ratings: 4 in areas with a water system, and 9 in the more rural parts of its service area without a water system. City of Modesto Fire protection within City limits is provided by the Modesto Fire Department (MFD). The MFD is also Modesto's first responder to many emergency situations. Fire stations are strategically located to provide rapid response, and fire engines are equipped with life-saving equipment. The MFD service area is approximately 38 square miles, serving approximately 72,615 residential units. Fire services in unincorporated areas included in the Modesto Urban Area General Plan boundary are provided by the Burbank/Paradise, Salida, Industrial, Woodland, and Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection Districts. The MFD employs a total of 175 people. The largest division, with 162 people, is the Fire Suppression division. This division primarily provides direct fire and emergency services. These firefighters operate through three shifts and are on duty 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.16 The MFD’s Fire Prevention division is staffed by ten people: a Fire Marshal, a Deputy Fire Marshal, two fire investigators, four Fire Technicians, and two administrative assistants to direct most fire prevention programs.17 The MFD consists of 11 fully staffed stations. Each station is equipped with at least one “Type 1” engine and three firefighters, with Crash and Fire Rescue unit and “purple K” (dry chemical) units at Station No. 8 and an Advanced Life Services (ALS) units at 15 Ibid. 16 City of Modesto Fire Department, Annual Report 2005. 17 City of Modesto Fire Prevention Bureau website accessed on December 16, 2005, http://www.modestofire.com/FPB/Index.asp#About%20the%20Bureau%A0. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Stations No. 4 and No. 9. Station No. 8 also houses a specially designed Aircraft Rescue/Fire Fighting apparatus. At least 51 firefighters, including one battalion chief, are on duty each 24- hour shift. Each fire engine is accompanied by a captain, an engineer, and a firefighter. Each ladder truck is accompanied by a captain, an engineer, and two firefighters. Two additional stations are proposed to be constructed: Fire Station No. 12, in the northeast portion of the City of Modesto east of the proposed project site between Roselle Avenue and Litt Road on land planned to be part of the future Mary E. Grogan Park; and Fire Station No. 13, in the north- central portion of the City. In 2003, the MFD responded to 1,077 fire-related calls, of which 285 were structure fires.18 Based on a standard of 1.1 firefighters per 1,000 population, the MFD strives to maintain a service standard of a “first in” response time within 6 minutes of dispatch in all areas of the City, with an “effective response force”19 on scene at all structure fires within 10 minutes. A second alarm assignment service standard is within 15 minutes of dispatch more than 95 percent of the time.20 The MFD’s average response time to approximately 1,703 emergency calls is 4.5 minutes from dispatch. This response time is met for 92 percent of the emergency calls.21 To fulfill firefighting water supply needs, pipeline sizes, pump capacities, and water storage capacity should be adequate to meet the demand for peak-load water supply. The minimum fire flow for commercial/industrial land uses is 1,500 gallons per minute. The three factors that influence fire flow rates are building square footage, type of construction, and automatic fire sprinklers. As mentioned in the Setting discussion on p. IV.K.7, fire protection classifications are designated by the State Insurance Services Office (ISO). Ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being the best possible protection. The MFD maintains an ISO rating of 2. The proposed project site is located in the primary service area of Fire Station No. 7, located at 1800 Mable Avenue (about one-half mile west of the western edge of the project site). The proposed project area is located in the secondary service area of Fire Station No. 5, at 200 West Briggsmore Avenue (approximately 3.5 miles to the south and west). Fire Station No. 9, located at 4025 Fara Biundo Drive (about 3 miles to the south and east), serves the northeastern portions of Modesto and would also respond to calls from the project site. Fire Station No. 7 has three personnel and is equipped with one Type 1 engine, Fire Station No. 5 has seven personnel and is 18 City of Modesto Fire Department website accessed on November 14, 2005, http://www.modestofire.com/Documents/YearEnd/2003.pdf. 19 An effective response force consists of three engines, one truck, and a battalion chief. 20 City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan, Policy K.2.j, p. V-29. 21 City of Modesto Fire Department website accessed on November 14, 2005, http://www.modestofire.com/Documents/YearEnd/2003.pdf. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 equipped with one Type I engine and one ladder truck, and Fire Station No. 9 has three personnel and is equipped with one Type I engine.22 Upon completion of proposed Fire Station No. 12 the project area would be located in its primary service area.23 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Policies of the Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and the Modesto Urban Area General Plan are discussed below. LAFCO policies are relevant because they govern the City of Modesto’s annexation of unincorporated County lands. The Modesto Urban Area General Plan policies are relevant because they govern existing City land. Upon fulfillment of LAFCO annexation requirements, Stanislaus County General Plan goals and policies would no longer apply and Modesto Urban Area General Plan policies would be applicable. Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission LAFCO oversees the annexation of unincorporated lands to the City under the provisions of the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Government Code Section 56000 et seq.). LAFCO is responsible for coordinating logical and timely changes in local governmental boundaries, conducting special studies that review ways to reorganize, simplify, and streamline governmental structure and preparing a Sphere of Influence for each city and special district within each county. The Commission's efforts are directed to seeing that services are provided efficiently and economically while agricultural and open-space lands are protected. Under Government Code Section 56668, LAFCO is required to consider the need for fire services before approving any annexation to the City. Prior to annexation, the applicant is required to submit a plan for service demonstrating that the area will have adequate fire service. The plan for service must provide evidence that, at the minimum, the current range and level of services provided to the proposed annexation area will be maintained. City of Modesto Chapter III, Community Development, Chapter V, Community Services and Facilities, and Chapter VI, Public Safety, of the Modesto Urban Area General Plan delineate goals related to 22 Chief James Miguel, Modesto Fire Department, e-mail communication with Turnstone Consulting, January 4, 2006. 23 Chief James Miguel, Modesto Fire Department, e-mail communication with Turnstone Consulting, January 4, 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 provision of adequate fire services. Policies furthering these goals that are relevant to the proposed project include the following: Community Development Policy III-D.1.d: Each Comprehensive Plan should include a long- range financing strategy which provides reasonable estimates of the costs of on- and off-site infrastructure to support the proposed development pattern. The strategy should generally address public facility funding, including schools, for any development project which serves to implement the subject Comprehensive Plan. If new public facilities are required which will also serve the broader community, the Comprehensive Plan should include options for broad-based funding mechanisms. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-K.2.a: The City of Modesto should strive to maintain adequate fire flows in relation to structure size, design, requirements for construction and/or built-in fire protection systems. Maintenance of adequate flows includes factors such as adequate storage, hydrant spacing, and spacing and sizing of water mains. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-K.2.b: The City of Modesto should ensure adequate ingress and egress to all structures for fire fighting and rescue purposes. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-K.2.c: The City of Modesto should provide protection of life and property through the use of engineered fire protection systems and fire- resistive roof systems. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-K.2.d: The City of Modesto should practice timely adoption of the Uniform Code, National Fire Code, and state codes. These codes and ordinances may be amended to suit local conditions. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-K.2.e: The City of Modesto should strive to ensure that fire stations, apparatus, equipment and personnel are in place concurrent with construction in the Planned Urbanizing Area. Maintenance of adequate fire flows includes factors such as adequate storage system gridding, hydrant spacing and spacing and sizing of water mains. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-K.2.f: Future fire stations and facilities should be closely coordinated with existing and planned public parks, libraries and other activity centers in order to encourage maximum efficiency of public facilities. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-K.2.g: The City of Modesto should promote fire-safe behaviors within the community through public fire education activities and programs. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-K.2.h: The City should maintain its readiness to mitigate man-made or natural disasters through maintenance and implementation of the Multi-Hazard Functional Plan. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-K.2.i: The Fire Department should maintain equipment, staffing and facilities to provide Emergency First Response level Emergency Medical Services, Urban Search and Rescue, and Hazardous Management Materials emergency response capabilities. Community Services and Facilities Policy V-K.2.j: The City of Modesto should strive to provide adequate Fire Department facilities through the achievement of the following facilities and service standards: ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The City of Modesto should maintain an emergency response system capable of achieving the following standards in 95% of all cases. The first emergency response unit arrives within 6 minutes of dispatch. A full alarm assignment arrives within 10 minutes of dispatch. A second alarm assignment arrives within 15 minutes of dispatch. The City should maintain staffing levels adequate to achieve an Insurance Service Office (ISO) Rating of Class 2. Public Safety Policy VI-D.1.a: The City shall ensure that adequate water fire-flows are maintained throughout the City and shall regularly monitor fire-flows to ensure adequacy. New development shall comply with the minimum fire-flow rates, as presented in Appendix III-A of the Uniform Fire Code. The Fire Chief is allowed by the Uniform Fire Code to alter any published standards. Public Safety Policy VI-D.1.b: Minimum road widths and clearances around structures shall conform to Section 10.204(a) of the Uniform Fire Code. The Fire Chief is allowed by the Uniform Fire Code to alter any published standards. Peak Load Water Supply: The City shall ensure that adequate water fire flows are maintained throughout the City and shall regularly monitor fire flows to ensure adequacy. New development shall comply with minimum fire-flow rates, as presented in Appendix III-A of the Uniform Fire Code. The Fire Chief is allowed by the Uniform Fire Code to alter any published standards. Minimum Road Widths and Clearances Around Structures: Minimum road widths and clearances around structures shall conform to Section 10.204 of the Uniform Fire Code. The Fire Chief is allowed by the Uniform Fire Code to alter any published standards. FIRE SERVICE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Significance Criteria For the purpose of this EIR, the City of Modesto recognizes impacts as significant if the project would result in an increased demand for fire services that cannot be adequately met by existing facilities and anticipated future facilities provided concurrent with development for the Modesto Fire Department. Effects of the Proposed Project The Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District currently provides fire services to the proposed project area and its vicinity. Upon annexation, the Modesto Fire Department would provide the full range of fire services to the proposed project site from Fire Stations No. 7, No. 5 and No. 9. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact K.2. Development of the proposed project site would result in an increase in emergency response call volumes which require an emergency response unit to arrive within six minutes. (Less than Significant) Present land uses on the project site include productive agriculture and ancillary uses, detached single-family residences, and some commercial/office space. The proposed project would change the character of the land uses from predominantly agricultural use with some residential and commercial/office uses to predominantly residential and commercial uses. This land use change would alter the type and amount of fire service provided. In 2005, the present land uses on the proposed project site combined to generate 27 calls to the Stanislaus County Fire Protection District: 11 fire-related calls, 8 emergency medical service and/or rescue-related calls, and 8 public assistance calls, hazardous conditions responses, and false alarms, among other items.24 Upon annexation of the proposed project site, Modesto Fire Department emergency response call volumes for fire emergency services would increase. Currently, the proposed project area is in the primary service area of Fire Station No. 7, approximately one-half mile to the west at 1800 Mable Avenue, and the secondary service areas of Fire Station No. 5, approximately 3.5 miles to the south and west at 200 W. Briggsmore Avenue and Fire Station No. 9 Fire Station No. 9, approximately 3 miles to the south and east at 4025 Fara Biundo Drive. Currently, Fire Station No. 7 personnel and apparatus would respond to all emergency calls from within the proposed project site and be on the scene within six minutes of dispatch. (See Figure IV.K.1: Fire Station Run Time Analysis – All Stations.) The inclusion of new territory into the Modesto Fire Department’s service area and increased residential and commercial development on the project site would lead to an incrementally higher volume of emergency response calls. As a result, more personnel time would be needed. The existing personnel and apparatus located at Modesto Fire Department Fire Station No. 7 would be adequate to meet the increased demand and expanded or new fire-protection-related infrastructure would not be necessary. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than significant impact on fire services. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. 24 Chief Steve Mayotte, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District, e-mail communication with Turnstone Consulting, January 4, 2006 and January 24, 2006. Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District Incident Report Summary for 2005 is on file with the City of Modesto. ---PAGE BREAK--- CLARIBEL ROAD PELANDALE AVE CLARATINA AVE KIERNAN AVE. CO R E V T RD CO R E V T RD BACO R N D BACO R N D N A B G E V A S BECKWI R H T D I H T NORT E V A H NORT E V A H E V A D N A L D O O W A D N A D V L B E Z A M E V A A I N R O F I L A C D R E S I D A R A P E V A E R O M T I H W W H Y 99 W H Y 99 HW 9 9 Y HW 9 9 Y STODDARD RD AMERICAN AVE TULLY RD MCHENRY AVE. COFFEE RD OAKDALE RD K A R ROSELLE A E LL V CLAUS D R LANGWORTH RD CARVER RD DALE RD PRESCOTT RD E V A E K A M E O H S E V A M U G E U L B B G G I R E V A E R O M S E V A S A S N A K D R H C T A H D R H C T A H T S H T 9 T S H T 9 o t s e d o M 9,000 0 FEET . Legend TRAVEL TIME (MINUTES) CITY OF MODESTO PROJECT SITE FIRE STATION 0-3 3-6 6-9 >9 1 3 9 # 5 4 7 6 11 8 2 10 E N AV S LVA Y SOURCE: City of Modesto, Turnstone Consulting IV.K.13 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact K.3. Development of the proposed project site would result in an increase in full alarm call volumes which require an effective response force to arrive within ten minutes. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) A full alarm call requires that the Modesto Fire Department field an effective response force25 on site within ten minutes of dispatch. Currently, an effective response force would be available to combat full alarm fires located in the northwest, southwest and southeast portions of the proposed project site. The effective response force would consist of three engine companies, one each from Fire Stations No. 7, No. 5, and No. 9, and one truck company from Fire Station No. 5. Although the engine companies arriving from Fire Stations No. 7 and No. 9 would respond within ten minutes to full alarm calls from the northeast portion of the proposed project site, the engine company and truck company from Fire Station No. 5 would not arrive in time to be part of an effective response force.26 (See Figure IV.K.2: Fire Station Run Time Analysis – Stations 1, 5 and 11.) In order to effectively serve the northeast portion of the proposed project site, an engine and truck company would need to be sited at a more proximate fire station. Fire Stations No. 7 and No. 9 do not have sufficient space to house an additional engine company or a new truck company.27 Thus, the inability to serve the northeast portion of the proposed project site within the necessary ten minute response period for full alarm calls would contribute to the need for a new fire station to house an engine company and a truck company. The inclusion of new territory into the Modesto Fire Department’s service area and increased residential and commercial development on the proposed project site would lead to an incrementally higher volume of full alarm calls. In order to effectively respond to full alarm calls from the northeast portion of the proposed project site, more personnel time and additional apparatus would be needed. To meet the increased demand, existing Modesto Fire Department facilities would have to be expanded or new fire-protection-related infrastructure would need to be constructed. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a significant impact on fire services. Mitigation Measure K.3. Prior to development of the northeast area of the Tivoli Specific Plan, project developers must provide the necessary funding for the construction of a Modesto Fire Department Fire Station to house an engine company and a truck company. 25 An effective response force consists of three engine companies, one truck company, and a battalion chief. 26 Chief James Miguel, Modesto Fire Department, conference call with Turnstone Consulting and City, April 3, 2006. 27 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- CLARIBEL ROAD PELANDALE AVE CLARATINA AVE KIERNAN AVE. CO R E V T RD CO R E V T RD BACO R N D BACO R N D N A B G E V A S BECKWI R H T D BECKWI R H T D NORT E V A H NORT E V A H E V A D N A L D O O W E V A D N A L D O O W D V L B E Z A M D V L B E Z A M E V A A I N R O F I L A C E V A A I N R O F I L A C D R E S I D A R A P D R E S I D A R A P E V A E R O M T I H W E V A E R O M T I H W W H Y 99 W H Y 99 HW 9 9 Y HW 9 9 Y STODDARD RD AMERICAN AVE TULLY RD MCHENRY AVE. COFFEE RD OAKDALE RD K A R ROSELLE A E LL V CLAUS D R LANGWORTH RD CARVER RD DALE RD PRESCOTT RD E V A E K A M E O H S E V A E K A M E O H S E V A M U G E U L B E V A M U G E U L B B G G I R E V A E R O M S E V A S A S N A K E V A S A S N A K D R H C T A H D R H C T A H T S H T 9 T S H T 9 o t s e d o M 9,000 0 FEET . Legend TRAVEL TIME (MINUTES) CITY OF MODESTO PROJECT SITE FIRE STATION 0-3 3-6 6-9 >9 1 # 5 11 E N AV S LVA Y SOURCE: City of Modesto, Turnstone Consulting IV.K.15 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.16 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Compliance with Modesto Urban Area General Plan policies, specifically Policy III-D.1.d, which calls for the development of a long-range financing strategy for each Comprehensive Plan Area, would allow the City to allocate the necessary funds to extend fire service into the Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District including the Tivoli Specific Plan project area. Projects developed in the Tivoli Specific Plan project area and within the Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District would pay all required development fees and taxes established by City-wide Capital Facilities Fee Program or other similar funding programs such as a Community Facilities District program as set out in the Tivoli Specific Plan Infrastructure Financing Plan. Fulfillment of these payments would result in the contribution of the project’s fair share of the proposed Fire Station No. 12 construction costs and would also function to reimburse those property owners who build out of sequence and are required to advance the full costs of community facilities. Upon completion of proposed Fire Station No. 12, the proposed project site, including the northeast portion, would be in the primary service area of this station28, and the secondary service area of Fire Station No. 7. Proposed Fire Station No. 12 would be less than a mile from the eastern edge of the proposed project site and would be equipped with 2 engine companies, 1 truck company, a battalion chief, and 13 personnel.29 Emergency response times from Fire Station No. 12 would be less than six minutes, and Fire Stations No. 7 and No. 12 would have sufficient personnel and apparatus to field an effective response force on scene at all locations within the proposed project site, including the northeastern portion. The proposed Fire Station No. 12 would be constructed prior to the issuance of the first building permit for development within the northeast area of the Tivoli Specific Plan. Completion of Fire Station No. 12 would reduce the level of significance of this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact K.4. Development of the commercial and high-density residential components of the proposed project with building heights over 30 feet could result in insufficient water pressure for firefighting. (Less than Significant) The commercial component of the proposed project would include structures over three stories tall or over 30 feet high. The residential component of the project includes multi-family housing that would include similarly sized structures. The majority of the residential component of the project, however, proposes construction of single-family dwellings that are less than three stories tall and less than 30 feet high. The three factors that influence fire flow rates are building square footage, type of construction, and automatic fire sprinklers. The minimum fire flow for commercial/industrial land uses is 1,500 gallons per minute. For multi-family, commercial, and 28 Chief James Miguel, Modesto Fire Department, e-mail communication with Turnstone Consulting, January 4, 2006. 29 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation K. Community Services Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.K.17 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 industrial areas all water mains are required to be sized to provide fire flow as specified in the Modesto Fire Code, Table A-III-A-1, but must provide no less than 1,500 gallons per minute from each of two adjacent fire hydrants flowing simultaneously with 20-pounds-per-square-inch residual pressure. For single-family residential areas, all water mains are required to be sized to provide 1,000-gallon-per-minute fire flow from each of two adjacent fire hydrants flowing simultaneously with 20-pounds-per-square-inch residual pressure.30 The water flow can generally be obtained using the following design standards: one-half-mile looped grid - 12-inch mains or larger; one-quarter-mile looped grid - 8-inch mains; and distribution system, looped - 8-inch mains.31 Providing fire pumps and automatic fire sprinklers in multi-story commercial and residential buildings, constructing looped 12- and 16-inch water supply pipelines, and meeting the required water flow and water pressure thresholds are elements of the proposed project. These elements would be in place prior to the completion of multi-story buildings exceeding 30 feet in height, ensuring adequate water pressure for firefighting for all structures on site. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. 30 Ibid. 31 City of Modesto, 2001 Standard Specifications, Engineering and Transportation Department, p. Design 6-2. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 L. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS This section analyzes the impact of the project on the City's wastewater system. Regarding other utilities and services systems, the Initial Study found that the project would not have a significant effect on solid waste disposal. Regarding solid waste, the City uses the Modesto and Stanislaus County Waste-to-Energy Plant, which has ample capacity to handle new waste from the project site.1,2 Storm water would be managed by two on-site detention basins, as discussed in Section IV.I of this EIR. Water supply is discussed in Section IV.M of this EIR. This section describes the projected quantity of wastewater to be generated by the Tivoli Specific Plan Project (project) and the existing wastewater system’s ability to handle wastewater flows from the project. This section also analyzes the environmental effects of the City's proposed facility expansion accommodating the increased wastewater flows. SETTING MODESTO'S EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM Overview of Wastewater Collection System Modesto's wastewater collection system conveys wastewater from residential, commercial, and industrial customers in its service area.3 Modesto's existing collection system includes nearly 600 miles of sanitary sewer lines, ranging from 6 to 60 inches in diameter, and about 39 lift stations. There are about 80 miles of major sewers, called trunk pipelines. The food processors (canneries) in the southeastern part of the City contribute a large volume of wastewater during the canning season, which occurs during the months of July through 1 E-mail from Karin Rodriguez, City of Modesto Integrated Waste Specialist, April 14, 2005. 2 The Initial Study for the Tivoli Specific Plan was issued in July 2005. It concluded that solid waste from the proposed project need not be discussed in the EIR. Subsequent to the Initial Study, the City added analysis of the 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment facilities to this EIR. Because the additional wastewater flow and tertiary treatment process would generate solid waste, solid waste is discussed below, pertaining to wastewater treatment. 3 The Modesto Municipal Sewer District No. 1 service area includes the current City limits, a portion of north Ceres, the unincorporated community of Empire, and unincorporated Stanislaus County “islands” within the City that are served by agreement. Carollo Engineers, Engineer's Report, Justification and Cost Allocation for Proposed Collection System and Treatment Plant Improvements, City of Modesto, Draft, p. 1, July 10, 2006 (“Carollo Engineer's Report, July 2006”). ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 September. The canneries are served by a Cannery Segregation trunk line and outfall constructed in 1999 under the City's 1995 Wastewater Master Plan.4 Most of the wastewater system flows by gravity. In some cases, lift stations (also called pump stations) are required to lift the wastewater up to a point where it can flow by gravity toward Modesto's primary wastewater treatment plant. In other cases, lift stations put the wastewater in the pipelines under pressure; such pipelines are called force mains. As shown in Figure IV.L.1, the existing Sonoma Trunk sewer line stubs out south of the project site at Sylvan Avenue. This is the trunk sewer that would serve the project site. Overview of Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Locations The City of Modesto operates two wastewater treatment plants. The primary wastewater treatment plant (“Primary Plant”)5 is located just north of the Tuolumne River and W. Hatch Road. It is south of John Street and Robertson Road, which are at the edge of a residential area. The Dryden Municipal Golf Course lies east of the plant, and the undeveloped Tuolumne River Regional Park (partly under construction) lies adjacent to the plant, to the west and north. A 60-inch-diameter Primary Effluent Outfall pipeline carries primary effluent from the Primary Plant approximately six and one-half miles southwest to the secondary wastewater treatment plant (“Secondary Plant”).6 Its route is essentially a diagonal line, from northeast to southwest, between the two treatment plants. A parallel 60-inch pipe, referred to as the Cannery Segregation Outfall carries cannery process water between July and September and is also used to convey primary effluent to the Secondary Plant during non-canning season. Figure IV.L.2 shows the locations of the Primary Plant, Secondary Plant, and the Outfalls. The Secondary Plant is outside the City boundary, and is located approximately 6.5 miles to the southwest of the City, on the eastern side of the San Joaquin River. The Secondary Plant and 4 The Cannery Segregation trunk is a 48-inch-diameter pipeline from the Beard Industrial Tract to the headworks at the primary wastewater treatment plant. This line is used year-round for industrial waste, although the heavy usage periods are during the summer months. There is also a 60-inch-diameter pipeline connecting the primary and secondary wastewater treatment plants referred to as the Cannery Segregation Outfall. 5 The City of Modesto's primary wastewater treatment plant is also known as the Sutter Avenue Primary Treatment Facility (or Plant). 6 The City of Modesto's secondary wastewater treatment plant is also known as the Jennings Road Secondary Treatment Facility (or Plant). ---PAGE BREAK--- T I V O L I S P E C I F I C P L A N P R O J E C T . COFFEE RD OAKDALE RD ROSELLE RD CLAUS RD CLARATINA AVE KIERNAN AVE 4,000 0 FEET BRIGGSMORE AVE SYLVAN AVE Existing Sonoma Trunk Proposed Sonoma Trunk Proposed Tivoli Lift Station #61 SOURCE: City of Modesto Information Technology GIS, Carollo Engineering, Turnstone Consulting Legend EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM MODESTO MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1 PLANNING AREA MAJOR ROADS TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA ROSELLE-CLARIBEL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DISTRICT EXISTING TRUNK LINE 10” DIAMETER AND LARGER SEWERS PROPOSED COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED TRUNK LINE PROPOSED TRUNK LINE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES PROPOSED LIFT STATION LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IV.L.3 ---PAGE BREAK--- SOURCE: City of Modesto, Turnstone Consulting 117 99 99 BLUE GUM AVE WOODLAND AVE KANSAS AVE MAZE BLVD CALIFORNIA AVE PARADISE RD GRAYSON RD KEYES RD KEYES RD TAYLOR RD TAYLOR RD ROBERTS RD MONTE VISTA AVE FULKERTH RD CARPENTER RD CARPENTER RD JENNINGS RD CENTRAL AVE MITCHELL RD MITCHELL RD FAITH HOME RD LEMON AVE ELM AVE EUCALYPTUS AVE OLIVE RD WALNUT AVE PALMAS AVE ORANGE AVE FIG AVE VIVIAN RD STONE AVE PAULINE AVE GRIMES AVE HART RD CROW’S LANDING RD MORGAN RD BLAKER RD USTICK RD WEST MAIN AVE LINWOOD AVE HARDING AVE HUBLE RD SERVICE RD WHITMORE AVE JOHN ST ROSELAWN AV SUTTER AV ROBERTSON RD ROUSE AVE HATCH RD YOSEMITE BLVD SCENIC DR ROEDING RD U O L U M N E 2I VE R 3A O A Q U IN 2I VE R MILES 0 2 . JENNINGS ROAD SECONDARY TREATMENT PLANT (“SECONDARY PLANT”) SUTTER AVENUE PRIMARY TREATMENT PLANT (“PRIMARY PLANT”) EXISTING PRIMARY EFFLUENT OUTFALL ( 60-INCH PIPELINE) CANNERY SEGREGATION LINE (60-INCH PIPELINE) IV.L.4 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 adjacent City-owned ranch (“Ranch”) lie south of W. Grayson Road and west of S. Carpenter Road. A small portion of the Ranch property is located south of West Main Avenue. Processing Wastewater flowing in the collection system is either pumped or flows by gravity to the Primary Plant, where it receives primary treatment. Primary (physical) treatment consists of several steps to remove solid material from the flows. The first step is to remove large objects and debris, such as rags, paper, and plastics, with bar screens. The second step is to remove grit (sand and other inorganic particles). Rags and grit are dried and hauled to the landfill for disposal. The third step consists of primary clarification: solids are settled out and floating matter is skimmed off. The solids removed from the wastewater (biosolids) undergo anaerobic digestion at the Primary Plant. Anaerobic digestion is a process in which microorganisms break down the solids in the absence of oxygen. Waste methane gas from the digestion process is flared. Digested solids7 are dewatered in solar drying beds, then trucked to the Secondary Plant for application on the City's Ranch as a soil amendment. The liquid portion of the wastewater (primary effluent) is then pumped through the Primary Effluent Outfall (and sometimes through the Cannery Segregation Line) to the Secondary Plant. The Primary Effluent Outfall and Cannery Segregation Line are both 60-inch-diameter pipelines. Their routes are essentially a diagonal line, from northeast to southwest, between the two treatment plants. The Secondary Plant currently provides secondary (biological) treatment. During this treatment, microorganisms break down biological matter. The Secondary Plant has fixed film reactors, facultative ponds,8 storage ponds, and a chlorination and dechlorination facility. Wastewater enters the plant from the Primary Effluent Outfall (and sometimes from the Cannery Segregation Line) and proceeds to the three 140-foot-diameter, fixed film reactors, where microorganisms further break down the waste. The flow enters a 100-acre oxidation, recirculating channel and then the three facultative ponds. After secondary treatment, effluent is either disposed of by land application on the City's 2,526- acre Ranch or disinfected with chlorine (to destroy harmful organisms), then dechlorinated with sulfur dioxide, prior to discharge to the San Joaquin River. Land application means that the City 7 The terms solids, biosolids, and sludge are used interchangeably in this section. 8 Facultative bacteria can adapt themselves to grow and metabolize in both aerobic and anaerobic without oxygen) conditions. By using facultative bacteria, both aerobic and anaerobic biological processes occur simultaneously. The upper portion of the water column supernatant) is aerobic and the lower portion is anaerobic. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 uses the treated effluent to irrigate the Ranch. The amount of effluent that can be applied to land is limited by agronomic considerations and rainfall. The City's permit allows discharge to the San Joaquin River only during October through May, when there is sufficient river flow for a 20:1 dilution of the treated effluent. The volume of discharge may also be affected by effluent quality.9 Algae grows in the storage reservoirs in October and November, generating high suspended solids concentrations that typically exceed discharge limitations. Consequently, discharge during October and November is currently not possible. The City is in the process of installing new dissolved air flotation (DAF) units to remove algae, which will allow the City to extend the discharge season into October and November. The DAF units are anticipated to be operational by 2008. If neither land nor river disposal is possible, due to permit or physical constraints, then the effluent is temporarily held in two storage ponds until it can be disposed. During storage, some evaporation occurs. WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND PROJECT SITE The project site is not currently served by sewers.10 There is a trunk sewer that ends just south of the project site, and would serve the project. The Sonoma Trunk sewer begins more than two miles south of the project site at the Scenic Drive Lift Station at the nook of Scenic Bend (near Scenic Dr.) adjacent to Dry Creek (also known as Beard Brook). The Sonoma Trunk runs under various streets and unimproved areas, including north in Sonoma Avenue, west in Orangeburg Avenue, north in Walnut Tree Drive, and north in West Sorrel Drive, before stubbing out at Sylvan Avenue.11 The Sonoma Trunk ranges in diameter from 33 inches at the Scenic Lift Station, to 27 inches at Sylvan Ave. Further facilities convey wastewater from the Sonoma Trunk to the Primary Plant, including the Scenic Drive Lift Station, River Trunk, and Beard Brook Crossing (a part of the River Trunk that crosses under Dry Creek). These and other related facilities are described below under “Project Impacts: Proposed Wastewater Collection System Improvements that Would Serve the Tivoli Specific Plan Project.” 9 Carollo Engineers, Domestic Wastewater Near Term Capacity Study, Final Draft, p. 2, March 2006 (“Near Term Capacity Study”). 10 Conference call between City Public Works Department and Community and Economic Development Dept. and Turnstone Consulting, July 12, 2006. 11 Carollo Engineers, Wastewater Capacity Study for the Proposed Tivoli Development Project, Technical Memorandum No. 2, Final, p. 3, December 2005 (“Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study”). ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Wastewater Treatment Requirements Water quality in surface and ground water bodies is regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards The City of Modesto and Stanislaus County are under the jurisdiction of the - Central Valley Region, which is responsible for implementation of state and federal water quality protection guidelines in the vicinity of the project area. The implements the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan),12 a master policy document for managing water quality issues in the region. The Basin Plan establishes beneficial water uses for waterways and water bodies within the region. Beneficial uses of surface waters in the Central Valley include water contact recreation, noncontact water recreation, industrial service supply, irrigation supply, navigation, shellfish harvesting, fishing, and preservation of rare and endangered species. 13 Beneficial uses of the groundwater aquifer include municipal and domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial service supply, and agricultural supply.14 develop standards restricting the amount of pollutants that can be discharged into the ground or into a water body, and enforce these standards by requiring proper authorization prior to discharges of potential water-borne pollutants. Under the federal Clean Water Act, discharges to surface waters San Joaquin River) require issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. NPDES permits in California are issued by the as delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NPDES permits may set limits (such as daily maxima in milligrams per liter) on pollutants, such as biological oxygen demand, total suspended solids, chlorine residual, and heavy metals. NPDES permits may specify characteristics of the receiving water that must be maintained, such as a range of pH (the measure of acidity or alkalinity) or a certain amount of dissolved oxygen. Discharges to both land and water require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). WDRs may specify broad limitations for discharges, such as not causing the groundwater to exceed water quality objectives or unreasonably affect beneficial uses. They may also set specific limits on discharges, such as quantities per acre per day. 12 California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, The Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin (“Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)”), 1998. 13 Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), p. II-7.00. 14 Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), p. II-2.00 to II-3.00. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Wastewater Discharges Wastewater discharges from the City of Modesto’s Wastewater Treatment Facility are regulated by the Valley Region. In 2002, the issued Waste Discharge Requirements for City of Modesto, Water Quality Control Facility, Stanislaus County (Orders No. 5-01-120 and 5-01-121, which are NPDES permits). Under these orders, the City operates the Primary and Secondary Plants and the Ranch (where treated water and untreated segregated cannery wastewater are applied for irrigation). Table IV.L.1 summarizes the City of Modesto's wastewater treatment system's permit requirements. The application of treated wastewater to land at the Ranch is regulated under the site-specific WDRs Order No. 99-112, which is also an NPDES permit). Sludge Processing and Application to Land The Primary Plant generates biosolids from on-site sludge drying operations (typically in the range of 3,000 to 4,000 tons annually). Dewatered solids from the Primary Plant are transported to the Secondary Plant for application on City-owned ranch lands. The issued WDRs (Order No. 94-030)15 for the sludge application to land. Biosolids from the City’s processes are applied only to City-owned land.16 City of Modesto The City of Modesto's Urban Area General Plan includes policies that relate to wastewater treatment.17 Selected policies are described below. The Tivoli project is within the “Planned Urbanizing Area” as defined by the Urban Area General Plan. Chapter V – Community Services - Wastewater 2. Wastewater Policies - Baseline Developed Area a. To protect public health and the environment, the City of Modesto will maintain the standards for effluent water and biosolids [as established by state and federal agencies, laws, and regulations].18 b. Wastewater facilities will be constructed, operated, maintained and replaced in a manner that will provide the best possible service to the public, given the financial abilities and constraints of the City and the private sector alike. In developing implementation plans, consideration shall be given to rehabilitation of essential 15 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, Waste Discharge Requirements for City of Modesto, Water Quality Control Facility, Stanislaus County. Order Nos. 5-10- 129 and 5-01-121, 2001. 16 Ibid. 17 City of Modesto, Urban Area General Plan, 1995, amended 2003, pp. V-13 - V-15. 18 The text in brackets is the essence of a much longer passage; it is paraphrased to save space. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting IV.L.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.L.1: Overview of Discharge Limitations for City of Modesto Discharge Activity Order Reference) Discharge Limitations1 Discharge of treated effluent to the San Joaquin River (Order No. 5-01-120 and 121) Effluent shall not exceed the following limits: BOD - 90 mg/L daily maximum; 30 mg/L average Total suspended solids - 105 mg/L daily maximum; 45 mg/L average Chlorine residual - 0.2 mg/L daily maximum Selenium - 8.2 mg/L daily maximum; 4.1 mg/L average Copper - 8.3 mg/L daily maximum; 4.5 mg/L average Molybdenum - 15 mg/L daily maximum; 10 mg/L average The discharge shall not have a pH less than 6.5 or greater than 8.5. The discharge shall not cause the receiving water concentrations of dissolved oxygen to fall below 7.0 mg/L or cause the presence of pesticides at levels that adversely affect beneficial uses, or result in any aesthetically undesirable discoloration. Discharge of effluent to land at the Ranch (Order No. 99-112) The discharge of cannery segregation wastewater or cannery segregation wastewater combined with treated secondary effluent in excess of 400 lbs/acre/day BOD (7-day average loading rate) is prohibited. The discharge, in combination with other sources, shall not cause underlying ground water to contain waste constituents in concentrations greater than background water quality at or beyond the point of compliance, which is defined as the current treatment plant property boundary. The discharge shall not cause the groundwater to exceed water quality objectives, unreasonably affect beneficial uses, or cause a condition of pollution or nuisance. Discharge of biosolids to land (Order No. 94-030) The discharge of sludge with pollutant concentrations greater than those shown below is prohibited (in mg/kg dry weight) Arsenic - 75 Cadmuim - 85 Chromium - 3,000 Copper - 4,300 Lead - 840 Mercury - 57 Molybdenum - 75 Nickel - 420 Selenium - 100 Zinc - 7,500 The discharge, in combination with other sources, shall not cause underlying ground water to exceed background concentrations or contain chemicals, heavy metals or trace elements in concentrations that adversely affect beneficial uses. Notes: mg/L = milligrams per liter; mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram 1 The discharge limitation descriptions presented represent an excerpt of the requirements of the orders. For a complete description of the effluent and receiving water limitations, refer to the referenced orders. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 existing facilities, expansion for current excess demand, and the timely expansion for future demand. c. The City's wastewater system capacity will be allocated to existing and future residential, commercial and industrial customers. . . . 3. Wastewater Policies - Planned Urbanizing Area a. All of the Wastewater Policies for the Baseline Developed Area apply within the Planned Urbanizing Area. b. The City of Modesto will require each new development project to be served with public sanitary sewers. c. The City of Modesto will coordinate land development proposals with the expansion of wastewater facilities. Figure V-3 of the Urban Area General Plan presents a diagram that indicates the sanitary sewer trunks necessary to serve each Comprehensive Planning District listed in Chapter III. The Sonoma Trunk line extension discussed in the Impacts and Mitigation section below is included on Figure V-3. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION APPROACH Proposed development in the Tivoli Specific Plan project area and future expected development near the Tivoli site would increase the amount of wastewater generated in the service area of the City’s wastewater treatment system (assuming annexation of the project site by the City). In addition, new cumulative development would require expansion of the City’s wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal infrastructure. This subsection analyzes the potential effects of the project on the capacity of Modesto's wastewater collection and treatment facilities, and analyzes whether the project would cause the City's wastewater system to fail to meet the wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. The potential environmental effects related to physical expansion of the City's wastewater facilities to meet near-term demand on the system from reasonably foreseeable growth are also addressed. This analysis contains information based on consultation with the City of Modesto, the City's engineering consultant (Carollo Engineers), and several technical documents and reports, as cited in the footnotes. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The following significance criteria are based on the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist. The project would result in a significant impact if it were to: Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Cause the City's wastewater treatment system to exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. PROPOSED CHANGES TO WASTEWATER SYSTEM FOR NEAR-TERM DEVELOPMENT Modesto's Wastewater System Challenges Modesto has grown rapidly and faces a number of challenges regarding its current wastewater collection and treatment facilities. Some of the key challenges include insufficient hydraulic capacity at the Primary Plant and limited disposal options for the Secondary Plant's effluent. (Challenges associated with the storm drain system, such as localized, temporary flooding during heavy rain events, are discussed in Section IV.I, Hydrology and Water Quality.) Collection System Capacity Portions of the collection system do not have sufficient capacity to convey peak wet weather flows. Pipes that lack sufficient capacity sometimes produce backwater effects and cause wastewater surcharges or overflows.19 Surcharge is defined as the condition that occurs when wastewater rises in the manholes above the level of the pipe), but does not overflow the manholes.20 To address capacity limitations, the City's engineering consultant (Carollo Engineers) has identified trunk pipelines requiring increased capacity Emerald and Sutter Trunks). Also, there are pump stations with insufficient capacity to convey peak wet weather flows. In addition, a number of direct connections between the storm drain system and the wastewater collection system exacerbate the capacity constraints, by adding storm water to the flow of wastewater (discussed below). To accommodate population growth, certain trunks, sub-trunks, and lift stations would need to be enlarged, and the storm drain cross-connections disconnected. 19 Carollo Engineers, Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, Draft, p. 5-1, August 2006 (“Wastewater Master Plan Collection, August 2006”). 20 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, p. 16. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Another issue is ageing, deteriorated pipes. Some of the older, reinforced concrete pipes in the collection system have corroded and are at risk of crown failure (which means that the top part of the pipe fails). These pipes can be rehabilitated in several ways, including chemical coating or placing a liner inside (slip-lining). Storm Drain Connections to Collection System The City’s current storm water drainage system consists of catch basins that convey rainwater to rockwells or to a storm drainage system which consists of storm drain piping and basins. Rockwells are relatively deep holes drilled into the soil and filled with engineered material that allows storm water to seep back into the ground, at a distance above the water table. Previously, in some areas of the City where rockwells were not available, connections between the storm drain system and the sanitary sewers were made. These connections capture the excess stormwater, which then flows to the Primary Plant.21 In addition, there are other means of indirect infiltration where excess water from street flooding enters into the sanitary sewer system. While these physical and temporary storm drain/sanitary sewer connections reduce flooding, they also increase the volume of wet weather flows in the sanitary sewers and at the treatment plants. These connections have exacerbated capacity problems in the collection system and the Primary Plant. Primary Plant Hydraulic Capacity The Primary Plant has sufficient dry-weather treatment capacity, but insufficient capacity to convey and treat projected wet-weather flows during the City's wastewater planning period of 2006 to 2030.22 The current peak wet weather flow is 71.7 million gallons per day (mgd).23 The existing hydraulic capacity of the Primary Plant is 81 mgd,24 but the capacity of the primary effluent pump station is only about 50 mgd.25 The effluent pump station capacity is insufficient for current peak wet weather flows.26 Further, the projected peak wet weather flow is expected to be 95.5 mgd by the end of the planning period.27 To accommodate this flow, the City plans to 21 Most sewer systems also experience unintentional “infiltration and inflow” of stormwater-influenced groundwater into the sanitary sewer system through cracks in pipes, loose pipe joints, and other means. 22 Carollo Engineer's Report, July 2006, pp. 1, 41. The Urban Area General Plan covers the planning period 2005 to 2025. Urban Area General Plan, p. I-4. 23 Carollo Engineers, Wastewater Master Plan Phase 2 Update Master Plan Report, Draft, p. 5-5, August 2006 (“Wastewater Master Plan Treatment, August 2006”). 24 Wastewater Master Plan Treatment, July 2006, p. 3-21. 25 Wastewater Master Plan Treatment, July 2006, p. 3-24. 26 Ibid. 27 See, e.g., Wastewater Master Plan Treatment, July 2006, p. 5-3. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 expand the headworks (where wastewater comes into the plant), increase certain processing capacity, and build a bigger effluent pump station. The Primary Effluent Outfall pipeline connecting the Primary Plant and Secondary Plant is also capacity-constrained. Approximately the first 1.5 miles of this pipe are a force main, and the remaining 5 miles operate by gravity.28 Hydraulic modeling showed the capacity of the gravity portion to be about 45 mgd; at this load, the pipe would begin to surcharge.29 (The Cannery Segregation Outfall also connects the two plants.) Effluent Disposal Capacity While the Secondary Plant currently has sufficient treatment capacity, the City has limited options for the discharge of the plant's secondary treated effluent. As discussed above, the City disposes of secondary effluent in two ways: through irrigation to land that it owns, and through a seasonal discharge to the San Joaquin River. Both land and river discharge are constrained by NPDES permits Orders No. 5-01-120, 5-01-121, and 99-112) and physical limitations; therefore, at times the City must store its secondary effluent until discharge is possible. The available capacity for river discharge depends on climatic conditions and river flows. Under conditions of the lowest 10th percentile river flow30 and average rainfall, the total, existing effluent disposal capacity is rated at 28.2 mgd.31 The process water from the “wet industries” (canneries) may be as much as 4 mgd (annualized). Therefore the capacity available for domestic wastewater effluent disposal is 24.2 mgd under low flow conditions.32 In 2005, the average flow to the Secondary Plant was 25.8 mgd. Excluding wet industry (cannery) process water, the effluent disposal demand is projected to be 29.5 mgd in the year 2011.33 Therefore, depending on the river flow conditions, the City is expected to have a disposal capacity need of up to 5.3 mgd by 2011.34 The City's permit allows discharge to the San Joaquin River only during October through May, when there is sufficient river flow for a 20:1 dilution of the treated effluent. As discussed above, the volume of discharge may also be affected by effluent quality.35 Algae grows in the storage reservoirs in October and November, generating high suspended solids concentrations that 28 Wastewater Master Plan Treatment, July 2006, p. 5-3. 29 Wastewater Master Plan Treatment, July 2006, p. 3-24. 30 The 10th percentile low flow has a 10 percent chance of occurring in any year. 31 Near Term Capacity Study, p. 1. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid., p. 2. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 typically exceed discharge limitations. Consequently, discharge to the river during October and November is not normally possible. However, the City has recently designed dissolved air floatation (DAF) equipment to remove algae in October and November. This equipment will add an additional 3.0 mgd of disposal capacity during a 10th lowest percentile year. With DAF, the domestic wastewater disposal capacity will be 27.2 mgd.36 The City currently applies treated effluent to over 2,500 acres. Land application is limited by agronomic considerations and rainfall. In the past, the disposal rate has been five feet per acre per year.37 Wastewater System Planning Activities In 1995, the City of Modesto prepared a Wastewater Master Plan38 to provide guidance for future expansion of its existing wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system to accommodate expected development in the area covered by the City's Urban Area General Plan. The 1995 Wastewater Master Plan contemplated development of the Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District (CPD) and extension of the collection system to serve this area.39 The City is in the process of preparing a 2006 Wastewater Master Plan, which will be the subject of a separate Environmental Impact Report. The separate EIR will address impacts of wastewater facilities expansion to serve buildout of Modesto as described and accommodated in the 2003 Urban Area General Plan. Due to the time needed for planning, permitting, design, and construction, the first major phase of these facilities would not be implemented for several years.40 As discussed above, to accommodate wastewater contributions from near-term development (including the Tivoli project), the City's engineering consultant prepared a Domestic Wastewater Near Term Capacity Study. The City's engineering consultant also prepared a Wastewater Capacity Study of the Proposed Tivoli Development Project.41 This study specifically addresses collection and treatment capacity for handling wastewater from the Tivoli project. 36 Near Term Capacity Study, p. 3. 37 Ibid. 38 City of Modesto, Wastewater Master Plan 1995. 39 Carollo Engineers, Wastewater Capacity Study for the Proposed Tivoli Development Project, Technical Memorandum No. 2, Final, December 2005, p. 5 (“Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study”). 40 Near Term Capacity Study, p. 1. 41 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.15 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 2006 Wastewater Master Plan's Proposed Wastewater System Improvements To understand the Tivoli project's incremental contribution to the need for wastewater system improvements, this subsection discusses the overall 2006 Wastewater Master Plan proposal. In order to serve anticipated development, the City proposes to extend certain trunklines, add new sub-trunks, and rehabilitate certain older trunks over time. In addition, the City's engineering consultant has identified trunk lines that should be enlarged to accommodate more flows. The proposed improvements also include the construction of several new lift stations and modifications to several existing lift stations. The upgrades generally consist of replacing the existing pumps with larger-sized pumps, which in some cases could require enlarging the underground or above-ground lift station structure. At the Primary Plant, the City plans to expand the headworks (by adding new grit screens and bar screening equipment to the existing headworks and adding a pump to the existing primary effluent pump station), add an anaerobic digester, build a flood protection levee, and replace the effluent pump station. The technical challenge at the Secondary Plant is not the hydraulic or processing capacity of the plant itself, but the treated effluent disposal capacity. The proposed solution is to add certain tertiary treatment processes including biological nutrient removal (“BNR”) to remove more pollutants from the effluent. BNR is a biological process that removes ammonia and nitrogen. Tertiary treatment and a higher level of disinfection (using ultraviolet radiation or chlorination) would treat the effluent to California Title 22 – Tertiary Standards. The City is in the process of renewing its discharge permit with the and anticipates that the will require the City to pursue tertiary treatment. Assuming that the City obtains approval from the for tertiary treatment, the City should be able to discharge this higher-quality effluent into the San Joaquin River on a year-round basis. The City would rehabilitate the existing 60-inch-diameter Primary Effluent Outfall pipeline between the Primary Plant and the Secondary Plant. Another component of the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan is the continued use the existing Cannery Segregation Outfall to convey wet weather flows from the Primary Plant to the Secondary Plant. Currently the City's average dry weather flow is 25.8 million gallons per day (“mgd”),42 and a conservative estimate of the peak dry weather flow is about 1.5 times greater.43 During wet 42 Wastewater Master Plan Treatment, July 2006, p. 2-6. 43 Wastewater Master Plan Treatment, July 2006, p. 2-7. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.16 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 weather, rainwater can dramatically increase flows. Peak wet weather flow is currently 71.7 mgd.44 To accommodate wastewater contributions from near-term development (including the Tivoli project), the City's engineering consultant prepared a Domestic Wastewater Near Term Capacity Study. Excluding wet industry (cannery) process water, the demand for effluent disposal from the Secondary Plant is projected to be 29.5 mgd in the year 2011.45 Therefore, depending on the river flow conditions, the City is expected to have a disposal capacity need of up to 5.3 mgd by 2011.46 The City's planned dissolved air floatation (DAF) units (described above) would provide 3.0 mgd of disposal capacity.47 The remaining disposal capacity need after DAF is 2.3 mgd by 2011.48 Anticipated near-term development of approximately 12,728 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) are projected through 2011, including development in the Tivoli Specific Plan area (2006 to 2011). The approximately 12,728 EDUs are expected to generate an additional 3.7 mgd of wastewater. As a first step to accommodating near-term demand, the City plans to construct the DAF units, providing 3.0 mgd of disposal capacity, based on 10th percentile river flows. Then, the City plans to construct 2.3 mgd of tertiary facilities at the Secondary Plant, to be completed by 2010, called Phase 1A. Phase 1A would provide approximately 2.3 mgd of additional wastewater treatment capacity. Phase 1A is discussed in greater detail below under “Impacts: Proposed Wastewater Treatment System Improvements that Would Serve the Tivoli Specific Plan Project.” Future phases could serve additional population growth within the City’s existing Sphere of Influence as contemplated by the City’s General Plan. PROJECT IMPACTS Wastewater Generation by Tivoli Specific Plan Project The City's engineering consultants calculated the wastewater generation for maximum build-out of the project. Table 1 in Appendix G provides the calculations by land use classification. The project is expected to generate about 1.1 mgd average dry weather flow (ADWF) of wastewater.49 44 Wastewater Master Plan Treatment, July 2006, p. 2-9. 45 Near Term Capacity Study, p. 1. 46 Ibid. 47 Near Term Capacity Study, p. 3. 48 Calculation: 5.3 mgd - 3.0 mgd = 2.3 mgd. 49 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, p. 9. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.17 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Proposed Tivoli Specific Plan Policies Related to Wastewater Treatment The Tivoli Specific Plan includes a Public Facilities Infrastructure Concept Plan, which deals with wastewater facilities. The Plan states that “backbone” infrastructure improvements would be built consistent with City standards and the proposed Tivoli Facilities Master Plan and Infrastructure Financing Plan.50 Each component would be designed to accommodate the full build-out of the Tivoli project area. In addition, the infrastructure would be sized “to allow for adjacent and future suburban development to proceed in an orderly and efficient manner.”51, The Plan also sets forth conceptual wastewater trunk lines and a proposed lift station.52 Proposed Wastewater Collection System Improvements that Would Serve the Tivoli Specific Plan Project On-Site Collection System and Sonoma Trunk Extension Additional collector sewers would be needed within the Tivoli project site to serve the proposed buildings. Flows from these relatively small pipes would flow to the Sonoma Trunk sewer. The Sonoma Trunk currently ends at the intersection of Sylvan Avenue and Wood Sorrel Drive. To collect wastewater from the smaller sewers in the project site, the Sonoma Trunk would be extended north. Figure IV.L.1 shows a hypothetical route and alternate route.53 The route depends upon the siting of the Tivoli Lift Station, described below. The hypothetical route shown in Figure IV.L.1 extends north along the proposed extension of Aria Way, and then winds north through the project site. An alternative route would extend 1,600 feet north as a 27-inch pipe, from the intersection of Sylvan Avenue and Wood Sorrel Drive in an un-named street within the project site, to a point south of Mabel Avenue.54 The pipe would continue with a 24-inch- diameter pipe to the north boundary of the project area at the proposed east-west extension of Claratina Ave.55 The pipeline construction would be performed by digging a trench, installing the pipe, and backfilling the trench (“cut-and-cover”). In existing streets, the cut and cover method would involve removing the asphalt, roadway base and the underlying soil; all would be replaced at the 50 Tivoli Specific Plan, p. 33; e-mail from Mr. Liu, Community Economic & Development Dept., August 7, 2006. 51 Ibid. 52 Ibid., p. 36A, Exhibit 3.3. 53 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, p. 3. 54 This link is designated SO-1. Carollo Engineer's Report, July 2006, p. 20. 55 This link is designated SO-2. Carollo Engineer's Report, July 2006, p. 20. Carollo's Figure 2B also shows a further extension as an 18-inch-diameter pipe to Vella Way (link SO-3). Ibid., Figure 2B and p. 21. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.18 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 completion of the project. Trenches could exceed ten feet in depth and eight feet in width for the largest installation. Tivoli Lift Station To maintain the proper grade to allow for gravity flow, a new lift station at Sylvan Avenue would be installed.56 The Sonoma Trunk is relatively shallow at its terminus at Sylvan Avenue and Wood Sorrel Drive; it has approximately 7.5 feet of cover between the top of the pipe and the existing ground level. To meet the City's criteria for minimum ground cover and pipe slopes, the sewer mains within the project site would have to end at a point deeper than the existing Sonoma Trunk. Therefore, the proposed Tivoli Lift Station (#61) would be constructed near Sylvan Avenue, somewhere between Wood Sorrel Drive and Aria Way. If located near Aria Way, the Sonoma Trunk would be extended from west to east under Sylvan Avenue, and it would operate under pressure over this stretch.57 The ultimate location of the Lift Station58 could depend on several factors including land ownership, engineering needs and constraints, and economics.59 Construction would include excavation, shoring, and possible groundwater dewatering. The lift station would have three 1,200-gpm pumps, which would provide a total pump capacity of approximately 5.2 mgd.60 Its firm capacity with one pump out of service) would be approximately 3.5 mgd.61 After the pump station lifts the flow, gravity would carry the flow through the existing Sonoma Trunk to the Scenic Drive Lift Station to the south. This lift station is planned to ultimately serve the projected expansion of the Sonoma Trunk tributary area due to future development north of the Tivoli project area.62 The Tivoli Lift Station could be completely underground or partially above ground. Existing lift stations in Modesto are typically entirely underground. The only surface evidence of their existence may be one or more control panels and a small radio antenna (up to 25 feet tall). The control panels are usually metal boxes approximately five feet high, three feet wide, and one foot thick. In some cases, lift stations are partially above ground. The above-ground structure size depends on the size of the pumps and controls, and other factors. A small, above-ground portion may be a small shed: several feet long, several feet wide, and several feet high, for example. In contrast, a large above-ground portion may resemble a small, one-story house, approximately 30 56 Ibid. 57 Tivoli Specific Plan (Draft), Exhibit 3.9 Waste Water System Diagram. 58 Whether the Sonoma Trunk would be extended under Sylvan Drive, or simply extended to the north without further construction under Sylvan Drive, would depend upon the location of the Tivoli Lift Station. 59 E-mail from Mr. Liu, Community Economic & Development Department, July 11, 2006. 60 Wastewater Capacity Study for Tivoli, December 2005, p. 5. 61 Wastewater Capacity Study for Tivoli, December 2005, p. 5. 62 E-mail from Mr. Liu, Community Economic & Development Department, July 11, 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.19 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 feet on a side, surrounded by an asphalt parking area and fence. Because the Tivoli Lift Station has not been designed, this EIR assumes that it is the largest of these options above the surface, i.e., the above-ground portion may resemble a small, one-story house, surrounded by an asphalt parking area and fence. Scenic Drive Lift Station Upgrade The Sonoma Trunk would connect the Tivoli Lift Station to the Scenic Drive Lift Station. The Scenic Drive Lift Station, shown in Figure IV.L.3, is one of the City's largest lift stations. The station is adjacent to Dry Creek on the street called Scenic Bend, near Scenic Drive. The above- ground portion of the station is one-story tall, partially hidden from the street by trees and a fence, and lower than the street. The Scenic Drive Lift Station currently has two 1,000-gallon-per-minute (“gpm”) pumps63 and one 7,000-gpm pump, providing 2.3 mgd of firm capacity and 12.4 mgd of total capacity. Carollo Engineers used a hydraulic model to study flows in the City's collection system. Carollo predicted peak wet weather flow (“PWWF”) of about 7.5 mgd at this lift station.64 Carollo concluded that the Tivoli project would exacerbate the lift station's firm capacity deficiency.65 The City proposes to upgrade the existing lift station to accommodate future flows from the project area. River Trunk Rehabilitation The River Trunk (“RV-1” on Figure IV.L.3) conveys wastewater from Areas 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 to the Primary Plant, including flow from the Scenic Drive Lift Station. The River Trunk begins in Beard Industrial Park, crosses Dry Creek, and runs parallel to the Tuolumne River for some distance.66 Its roughly four-mile run includes sections of single and parallel pipe. The pipes range from 24 inches in diameter to 60 inches at the terminus at the Primary Plant. The City projects that at build-out of the Sphere of Influence, the River Trunk would convey about 42 percent of the City's average dry weather flow.67 The River Trunk is made of reinforced concrete pipe RCP is susceptible to corrosion and loss of structural strength, possibly causing the top, or crown, of the pipe to collapse (crown failure). The City's engineering consultants examined the River Trunk and recommended that the 63 Actual performance of the smaller pumps has been about 800 gpm. Wastewater Master Plan Collection, June 2006, p. 4-11. The Scenic Drive Lift Station is designated LS #63. 64 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, p. 13. The 7.5 mgd PWWF assumes that the direct storm drainage connections are removed from the wastewater collection system. Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, pp. 3-4. 67 Wastewater Master Plan Collection, June 2006, p. 4-6. ---PAGE BREAK--- HWY 9 9 HWY 9 9 STODDARD RD AMERICAN AVE TULLY RD MC HENRY AVE COFFEE RD OAKDALE RD ROSELLE RD CLAUS RD LANWORTH RD CARVER RD DALE RD PRESCOTT RD TH ST 9 FINNEY RD Beard Industrial Park Empire KIERNAN AVE COVERT RD BACON RD BECKWITH RD DAKOTA AVE N. CARPENTER RD SHOEMAKE AVE BLUE GUM AVE WOODLAND AVE KANSAS AVE MAZE BLVD CALIFORNIA AVE CALIFORNIA AVE PARADISE RD WHITMORE AVE HATCH RD BANGS AVE BRIGGSMORE AVE BRIGGSMORE AVE SYLVAN AVE HWY 99 PELANDALE AVE CLARATINA AVE 9,000 0 SOURCE: City of Modesto Information Technology GIS, Carollo Engineering, Turnstone Consulting FEET . Legend U O LU M NE 2IVER CSL-2 CSL-1 MODESTO MUNICIPAL SEWER DISTRICT NO. 1 PLANNING AREA MAJOR ROADS EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT AREA ROSELLE-CLARIBEL COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DISTRICT EXISTING TRUNK LINE 10” DIAMETER AND LARGER SEWERS PROPOSED COLLECTION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED TRUNK LINE PROPOSED TRUNK LINE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES LIFT STATION (NOTE: TIVOLI LIFT STATION LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED) PROPOSED TIVOLI -SYLVAN AVENUE LIFT STATION #61 PROPOSED SONOMA TRUNK EXTENSION SONOMA TRUNK SCENIC DRIVE LIFT STATION #63 RIVER TRUNK REHABILITATION BEARD BROOK RELIABILITY PROJECT SC E N I C D R MITCHELL AVE FINCH RD NATHAN AVE YOSEMITE BLVD BEARD AVE NEEDHAM ST J ST D ST RIVER TRUNK REHABILITATION PRIMARY PLANT PROPOSED TRUNK LINE ALTERNATIVE IV.L.20 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.21 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 oldest portion (over 50 years old) be restored by point repair, lining, and/or chemical coating).68 The portion to be restored lies between the connection to the Ceres Trunk and Beard Avenue.69 Specifically, the westernmost point is in Dryden Park Municipal Golf Course, just north of the Tuolumne River, due west of Pueblo St. The easternmost point is at the intersection of Beard Avenue and Nathan Avenue One method of lining is called sliplining, which means slipping a new, smaller pipe into an existing pipe.70 The method typically requires a pit at either end for entry and exit. The pit would be about 25 feet long, 15 feet wide, and as deep as the pipe. The lining pipe is typically made of PVC, HDPE, or polymer concrete.71 Chemical-coating involves a chemical spray with magnesium hydroxide. This high-pH (caustic) solution coats the pipe and stops further deterioration, but must be reapplied annually.72 This work would be done through existing manholes and would not require excavation. Other coating materials do not necessarily require an annual reapplication. Sonoma and River Trunks - Crown Spray Corrosion Prevention The City also plans to chemically coat the crowns (inside top of pipe) of the Sonoma Trunk and the portions of the River Trunk not included in the River Trunk Rehabilitation described above. 73 These actions would prevent more costly structural rehabilitation later.74 Cannery Segregation Line Diversion Hydraulic modeling of the City's collection system indicates that the River Trunk could surcharge and overflow during a 10-year, 24-hour storm, near the River Trunk's crossing under Highway 99.75 To alleviate this risk, the City proposes to construct a 48-inch-diameter diversion from the River Trunk to the Cannery Segregation Line (“CSL”) trunk during peak wet weather flow events.76 The CSL is currently used year-round, with most of the flow occurring only during the 68 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, p. 14. 69 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, p. 14. 70 Wastewater Master Plan Collection, June 2006, p. 7-3. 71 Wastewater Master Plan Collection, June 2006, p. 7-3. 72 Wastewater Master Plan Collection, June 2006, p. 7-4. 73 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, p. 14. This is planned for the next ten years, and beyond. 74 Ibid. 75 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, p. 13; Draft Wastewater Master Plan Collection, June 2006, p. 5-26. 76 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, p. 13; Draft Wastewater Master Plan Collection, June 2006, p. 5-26. See footnote 4 regarding the two pipes called Cannery Segregation Line. The discussion above refers to the 48-inch-diameter trunk sewer. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.22 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 canning season (typically July through September); therefore, it would be available to serve this redundancy function in the winter.77 The first part of this diversion (designated “CSL-1”) would be located on the west side of the Beard Brook (Dry Creek) crossing, between Morton Boulevard and 11th St.78 Near the Primary Plant, the flow would be diverted back to the River Trunk. This second part of the diversion (designated “CSL-2”) would be located near the north bank of the Tuolumne River, between Crater Avenue and Seine Drive (due north of Boise Ave.). See Figure IV.L.3. Beard Brook Reliability Project The River Trunk's existing crossing under Beard Brook (Dry Creek) is a 48-inch-diameter pipe.79 The existing Beard Brook pipe conveys all the flow from Areas 5, 6, and 7, going toward the Primary Plant. The City proposes to construct a second 1,719-foot, 48-inch-diameter pipe (Beard Brook Reliability Project) parallel to the existing pipeline. It would start at the western end of Oregon Drive and proceed west under Beard Brook and end within Beard Brook Park about 50 feet from the west bank of the creek. This new crossing would allow the existing pipe to be rehabilitated, and afterwards, the new pipe would serve as a supplemental pipe. The Beard Brook Reliability Project would be constructed under Beard Brook using microtunneling techniques (also known as “Horizontal Directional Drilling” or “HDD”). Microtunneling uses a small tunneling machine. The tunneling machine is mounted on the front of the sewer pipe. The process also uses a slurry of drilling fluid (usually bentonite), carried by a slurry line inside the sewer pipe. A bentonite slurry lubricates the tunneling action and also the outside of the pipe as it slides through the hole made by the tunneling machine. The machine is controlled by a computer and can be very accurate. The pipelines would be placed at least five feet below the river or creek bed. No damming, dewatering, trenching, or backfilling would be required. The construction crew first creates a launch pit and a receiving pit on either side of the waterway for access. The launch pit is larger. Temporary dewatering may be needed for the pits. The crew of about five to ten workers would spend about three to four weeks in preparation, including digging the pits. The actually tunneling would take only three to five days, 24 hours per day. For creek crossings, the spoils (slurry) would be put into tanks, where the heavier material would settle out. The solids would be taken to a non-hazardous disposal site. After completion, permanent manholes would remain at each portal. 77 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, p. 13. 78 Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, p. 13. 79 Wastewater Master Plan Collection, June 2006, p. 7-13. The Cannery Segregation Line trunk consists of three smaller siphons also crossing Dry Creek. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.23 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Storm Drain Disconnections Another component of the City's proposed near-term work on its collection system is to reduce the peak flows in the sanitary sewers by disconnecting up to (about) 47 interconnections (also known as cross connections) between the storm sewers and sanitary sewers. The hydraulic modeling work done to calculate the necessary sizes of other collection system improvements assumes that these disconnections are made. The City is preparing a Storm Water Master Plan to address these issues. It is expected that the disconnections would be made by one or more of a menu of options, such as installing storm water pipes and catch basins. Most of the proposed storm drain pipes would ultimately be conveyed to proposed terminal detention basins. However, since it is currently not economically feasible to construct the ultimate conveyance facilities and terminal detention basins at this time, other interim options have been developed to remove these cross connections, which are less expensive and can be completed relatively quickly. In areas where there is an existing positive storm drain system downtown Modesto), some of these cross connections could be eliminated by adding a lateral storm drain to an existing, near-by storm drain pipe. In addition, the City could build other elements of the storm drainage infrastructure that may be retrofitted to other storm drainage system elements in the future. By constructing sections of selected storm drain trunk lines (and additional laterals) proposed under the Storm Water Master Plan, the existing storm drain system and inlets could be disconnected from the sanitary sewer system and connected to a system of storm drain pipes. An option for eliminating cross-connections where near-by positive storm drain facilities are not available, is to provide underground storage via installed sections of storm drain pipes on an interim basis. Under this scenario, the underground storage would consist of large storm drain pipes that would primarily provide temporary underground storage and would utilize temporary rock wells for infiltration of excess runoff. The temporary rock wells are proposed at the terminus of each of the section of storm drain pipes. The purpose of this rock well, which is a well that is filled with an engineered material to allow for percolation of water into the ground, would be to allow drainage and infiltration of the storm water. In addition, any existing rock wells along the proposed pipe alignments would remain in place and be used in a similar manner. The cross connections to the sanitary sewer may be removed using this approach, but a degree of street flooding would continue to occur in the areas served by the new facilities under the interim condition. Once the applicable elements of the Storm Water Master Plan's (in process) storm drainage system are constructed, however, the street flooding issue would be substantially alleviated. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.24 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Existing Primary Effluent Outfall Rehabilitation Portions of the existing 60-inch-diameter Primary Effluent Outfall pipeline are severely corroded on the interior.80 The City proposes to rehabilitate the Primary Effluent Outfall to increase its hydraulic capacity. The planned rehabilitation method is to line the pipe with a plastic liner (slip- lining).81 Part of the Primary Effluent Outfall has already been lined. The existing Primary Effluent Outfall is a force main (operating under pressure) for approximately 1.5 miles; after that, the effluent flows by gravity to the Secondary Plant. With a liner installed, the entire pipeline could be pressurized. Although the interior diameter would be reduced, more effluent could be pumped through the line. In addition, the City would use the 60-inch-diameter Cannery Segregation Outfall more frequently as a second outfall pipeline during the wet weather season. With both pipelines in operation during wet weather, the City would have adequate capacity to handle wet weather flows. Construction and Phasing For rehabilitation of the existing Primary Effluent Outfall, workers would dig access pits or portals, so that the plastic lining may be inserted in the pipe. Temporary access pits would be dug at various locations along the 6.5-mile length. The work is anticipated to be completed within the next five years. Construction portals may be needed on either side of the Tuolumne River. The construction portal on the north side of the Tuolumne River would be on City property at the southwest corner of the Primary Plant site. The portal on the south side of the river may be in W. Hatch Road, near Rancho Encantando Street, or in the small park adjacent to W. Hatch Road and Rancho Encantando. This “pocket park” contains children's play equipment. It is at the corner of W. Hatch Road and Rancho Encantando. Construction would either temporarily displace a portion of the park, or if construction is in the roadway, disturb park users. Secondary Plant Modifications As mentioned above, the City plans to upgrade and expand the Secondary Plant in multiple phases over time. The City's preferred alternative to deal with the effluent disposal challenge is to upgrade to tertiary treatment. This would allow disposal of treated effluent to the San Joaquin River year-round. In the long run, the City would convert the existing recirculation channel to an extended aeration basin, where nitrification and denitrification would take place. After this, 80 Wastewater Master Plan Treatment, July 2006, p. 8-13. 81 Wastewater Master Plan Treatment, July 2006, p. 8-12. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.25 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 either conventional filtration or membrane filtration would be used, along with other processes, then disinfection. The City would switch from chlorine to sodium hypochlorite for disinfection, or possibly use ultraviolet light. However, these long-term plans would not provide the near-term capacity for the Tivoli project. As a separate project, the City plans to install dissolved air floatation to reduce algae growth during October and November. This will allow discharge of treated effluent to the San Joaquin River during these months. The DAF units underwent separate CEQA review and consideration by City decision-makers.82 These units are anticipated to be completed in 2008 and assumed to be in operation by the time the Secondary Plant modifications discussed in this EIR are under construction, and prior to occupancy of any structures within the Tivoli Specific Plan area. The City has not made a final selection of the process for the 2.3 mgd of new tertiary treatment. However, the following description represents the likely options.83 Future tertiary treatment would begin with effluent from a point along the existing process stream, depending on the alternative selected. The flow would enter a nitrification process (nitrifying trickling filter), which would remove ammonia. The treated flow would then undergo sedimentation and filtration, either using secondary clarifiers and effluent filtration (cloth or disk filters) or membrane filtration (micro-filtration). Depending on the composition and quantity of solid matter (waste-activated sludge) from the selected process, the sludge would be thickened, and either be directed to the anaerobic digester for further processing before being sent to the sludge drying beds, or sent directly to the sludge drying beds. The sludge would not be composted. The City plans to complete this near-term phase by 2011. The City would continue to use chlorine for disinfection and sulfur dioxide for dechlorination prior to discharge, until 2016. The tertiary effluent would be aerated prior to discharge to the San Joaquin River. The tertiary treatment process, along with a higher level of disinfection, would allow discharge of the 2.3 mgd of treated effluent to the San Joaquin River year-round. The City would have to obtain agreement from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for modifications to its NPDES permit in order to build and operate the tertiary facilities. The proposed improvements would be located in the southwest portion of the Secondary Plant site, among the existing chlorination facilities. Figure IV.L.4 shows a hypothetical arrangement. In addition to the location shown in Figure IV.L.4, the City would install pipes to connect the tertiary equipment to the rest of the treatment plant. The locations of these pipes have not yet been determined, but they would be within the Secondary Plant site. 82 A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the DAF units was approved on September 26, 2006. 83 E-mail from Mr. Liu, Community Economic & Development Department, July 11, 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- SOURCE: Carollo Engineering, Turnstone Consulting N 0 100 FEET &LOCCULATION #HAMBER 3ECONDARY %FFLUENT &ROM $!&S 0UMP 3TATION &ILTERS .ITRIFYING 4RICKLING &ILTER IV.L.26 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.27 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Project Impacts: Wastewater Services Impact L.1. The City's wastewater collection system would not have adequate capacity to serve the project. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The project would generate about 1.1 mgd of wastewater. The existing City wastewater collection and treatment facilities would not be adequate to serve the project without additional improvements, described above. The on-site collection system is proposed to be included in the final project design. Collector sewers, such as 10-inch sewer lines, would be constructed in streets in the project site to collect project-generated wastewater. These collectors would connect to the City's proposed extension of the Sonoma Trunk line.84 The proposed Tivoli Lift Station would cause the flow to continue southwards in the system. All on-site collection system improvements would be installed by the project developer prior to or concurrent with development of the project. The proposed off-site improvements to the City’s wastewater collection systems will be constructed as necessary to serve development and are anticipated to be funded through a combination of rates and capacity charges. The City is in the process of updating its Wastewater Master Plan and its wastewater rates and capacity charges, as the current rates and capacity charges are not adequate to pay for the repairs and upgrades to the City’s existing systems that would be necessary to serve the Tivoli Specific Plan area. The City anticipates that the new rates and fees would be in effect by summer 2007 and that bond funding for construction of the necessary improvements would be available by approximately spring 2008. The new rate and fee program would include increased capacity charges which would serve as a mitigation impact fee program to pay for the additional infrastructure necessary to serve new growth within the City’s sphere of influence. Prior to issuance of a building permit, project applicants would be required to contribute toward their fair share of these improvements through payment of the adopted capacity charges. The City anticipates that the new rates and fees would be in effect and adequate funding would be available to ensure the improvements necessary to serve the Tivoli Specific Plan area would be complete and operational prior to development of this area. However, in the event that the new rates and fees are not adopted or funding is not available to ensure the timely completion of these improvements prior to development of the project area, the project sponsors or project applicants 84 In the event that the Regional Serving Commercial area RSC-1 (northwest portion of project site) develops first, the Wastewater Capacity Study has determined that the regional commercial site could be served by a 10-inch sewer south on Oakdale and east on Sylvan Ave. to connect to the Sonoma Trunk. Tivoli Wastewater Capacity Study, pp. 26-27. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.28 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 would be required to fund construction of all off-site improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan. The City’s existing wastewater collection systems do not have adequate capacity to handle the additional wastewater flows which will result from this project. Therefore, without the new infrastructure, the project’s wastewater would create a significant impact on the City’s existing wastewater facilities. However, implementation of the mitigation measures below would ensure that the necessary infrastructure to serve this project would be constructed and, therefore, the project’s impact would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure L.1 Prior to or concurrent with development, the project sponsors and any project applicants for future development in the Tivoli Specific Plan area shall install all on-site collection system improvements which are necessary to serve the development. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicants will be required to contribute toward their fair share of the required off-site collection system improvements through payment of future capacity charges, as adopted by the City or through an equivalent funding measure. In addition, prior to or concurrent with development, the project developers shall fund and install all off-site infrastructure which are necessary to serve the development. These mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact L.2. The project would generate wastewater in excess of the near-term disposal capacity for treated effluent from the Secondary Plant. (Significant and Unavoidable) As described above, the existing City wastewater treatment facilities would not be adequate to serve the project without additional improvements. To address this issue, the City would add tertiary treatment and a higher level of disinfection at the Secondary Plant in multiple phases over time. The first, interim phase is anticipated to be completed by 2011 and could provide approximately 2.3 mgd of additional wastewater treatment capacity. This first 2.3-mgd increment would allow disposal of the treated effluent generated from some or all of the project's 1.1 mgd of wastewater. However, until the tertiary treatment is available, the additional wastewater from the Tivoli project could cause the City to exceed its own recently adopted treatment and discharge standards. Because the City has not yet secured a permit to construct the near-term tertiary treatment facility from the or adopted a funding mechanism to ensure that the tertiary treatment will be available in a timely manner, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.29 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 As noted above, the City is required to obtain a NPDES permit from the for the tertiary treatment. Assuming the approves such a permit, the City anticipates that the higher level of treatment at the Secondary Plant would allow the City to discharge additional increments of treated effluent to the San Joaquin River year-round. Being able to discharge more effluent to the River would increase the amount of wastewater that the City can treat and dispose. The proposed near-term wastewater treatment and disposal facilities would be constructed by the City and funded through a combination of rates and capacity charges. The City is in the process of updating its Wastewater Master Plan and its wastewater rates and capacity charges, as the current rates and capacity charges are not adequate to pay for the repairs and upgrades to the City’s existing systems that would be necessary to serve the Tivoli Specific Plan area. The City anticipates that a new NPDES permit to allow for tertiary treatment will be approved by spring 2007, that its new rates and fees would be in effect by summer 2007, and that bond funding for construction of the necessary improvements would be available by approximately spring 2008. The new rate and fee program would include increased capacity charges which would serve as a mitigation impact fee program to pay for the additional infrastructure necessary to serve new growth. Prior to issuance of a building permit, project applicants would be required to contribute toward their fair share of these improvements through payment of the adopted capacity charges. The City anticipates that the new rates and fees will be in effect and adequate funding would be available to ensure the improvements necessary to serve the Tivoli Specific Plan area would be complete and operational prior to development of this area. However, in the event that the new rates and fees are not adopted or funding is not available to ensure the timely completion of these improvements prior to development of the project area, the project sponsors or applicants would be required to fund and construct the necessary improvements. The City’s existing wastewater treatment and disposal facilities do not have adequate capacity to handle the additional wastewater flows which would result from this project. Therefore, without the new infrastructure, the project’s wastewater would create a significant impact on the City’s existing wastewater facilities. Mitigation Measure L.2 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicants will be required to contribute toward their fair share of the required wastewater treatment and disposal facilities through payment of future capacity charges, as adopted by the City, or through an equivalent funding measure. However, because the new rate and fee program has not yet been adopted nor bonds issued for any of the near term treatment or disposal improvements, the City cannot assure that adequate funding to pay for the necessary improvements will be available in a timely manner so as to assure the completion of the treatment and disposal facility improvements prior to development ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.30 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 of this area. In addition, the City cannot commence tertiary treatment without a new NPDES permit from the The is encouraged to issue the new NPDES permit in a manner that would allow for successful implementation of the City’s proposed tertiary treatment. While the City is optimistic that an appropriate NPDES permit will eventually be issued, this action is beyond the City’s jurisdiction and control and therefore the City cannot assure that the necessary treatment and disposal infrastructure will be permitted prior to development. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Project Impacts: Impacts of Proposed Wastewater Collection System Improvements and Treatment Facilities That Would Serve the Tivoli Project Land Use and Planning Regarding changes in land use, the Sonoma Trunk extension and most of the other collection system improvements85 would be entirely underground. The only permanent surface structures for the Sonoma Trunk extension would be manhole covers. The trunk by itself would have no land use impact. The Tivoli Lift Station could be underground, with a small control panel and radio antenna above ground.86 Alternatively, it could be partially above ground, in a structure like a shed or, possibly, like a small, one-story house.87 Land uses adjacent to and north of Sylvan Avenue include fallow agricultural land grasses, disked land) and residential. Land uses adjacent to and south of Sylvan Avenue are residential. Even if the lift station is a small, one-story above-ground structure, it would not create a significant change in land use, or be incompatible with the existing mix of agricultural operations, residences, and neighborhood-serving commercial uses on and around the project site or with the project's proposed land uses. The upgrade to the Scenic Drive Lift Station88 could include an increase in the size of the above- ground portion of the existing one-story lift station, or it might not. (The pumps are partially or completely below grade.) The lift station is flanked by a residence on either side, and there is a residence across the street (Scenic Bend). The fourth side of the lift station is near to the northern bank of Dry Creek. The bottom of the above-ground portion of the existing lift station sits below the street grade. Even if the one-story structure was enlarged in width, depth, and/or height, it 85 The following collection system improvements would be underground: River Trunk rehabilitation, Sonoma Trunk crown spray, River Trunk crown spray, Beard Brook reliability project, Cannery Segregation Line Diversion. 86 An example is the Hahn Lift Station on Nightgale Drive near Honey Creek Road in northeastern Modesto. Turnstone Consulting, site visit, August 10, 2005. 87 An example is the Woodland Lift Station at Woodland Ave. and Poust Road in eastern Modesto. Turnstone Consulting, site visit, August 10, 2005. Another example is the Scenic Drive Lift Station. 88 The Scenic Drive Lift Station is across from 2809 Scenic Bend. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.31 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 would not be incompatible with the surrounding residential land uses or the forested area near Dry Creek. It is possible that the Beard Brook reliability project would have permanent concrete structures at the access portals; these would have no land use impact, as they would be adjacent to other such structures associated with the several existing wastewater pipes that go under Beard Brook. The proposed Phase I tertiary treatment modules would be entirely within the existing Secondary Plant and Ranch boundary. The treatment modules would be located in the southwest portion of the site on agricultural land currently used for fodder crops. The change in land use from agriculture to utility infrastructure is analyzed under "Agriculture" below. Regarding consistency with existing plans and policies, the wastewater system expansion to serve Tivoli is consistent with the 2003 Urban Area General Plan.89 The Sonoma Trunk extension, Tivoli Lift Station, other collection system upgrades, and 2.3 mgd of capacity at the Secondary Plant are generally consistent with the adopted 1995 Wastewater Master Plan (which envisioned a Sonoma Trunk extension and a higher level of treatment at the Secondary Plant). More importantly, these facilities are consistent with the 2006 Wastewater Master Plan, which is being finalized at the time of this writing. Agricultural Resources If the Tivoli Lift Station were built on Prime Farmland north of Sylvan Avenue, this impact could be significant. Any loss of Prime Farmland as a result of construction of the Tivoli Lift Station is covered by the discussion in Section IV.B, Agricultural Resources, regarding loss of agricultural land within the Specific Plan area. Impact L.3. Implementation of the near-term tertiary treatment facilities at the Secondary Plant would directly result in the permanent loss of Prime Farmland. (Significant and Unavoidable) Development of the 2.3 mgd of tertiary capacity at the Secondary Plant would result in the conversion of a small amount of acreage from Prime Farmland to utility infrastructure, resulting in the permanent loss of the land as Prime Farmland.90 The direct impact of the loss of Prime 89 See, for example, Figure V-3 of the Urban Area General Plan. 90 The land south of the Secondary Plant is categorized by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (“FMMP”) of the California Department of Conservation's Division of Land Resource Protection as “Prime Farmland” and “Farmland of Statewide Importance.” The FMMP publishes a statewide map with a minimum measuring unit of ten acres. (No local maps are available.) The most up-to-date statewide map is titled the “Important Farmland in California, 2002” and is located at the following URL on the Worldwide Web: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/images/fmmp2002_300.pdf. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.32 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Farmland would be a significant, irreversible and unavoidable impact. See the discussion of Impact B.1 in Section IV.B, Agricultural Resources. Mitigation Measure L.3. Same as Mitigation Measure B.1. It is possible that the City Council could find that the project’s contribution to the direct loss of prime farmland in Stanislaus County could be partially mitigated through the creation and implementation of a farmland mitigation program. Compliance with any adopted farmland mitigation program would be a condition precedent to the issuance of building permits for the project but would not fully mitigate the direct loss of Prime Farmland resulting from the project to a less-than-significant level. Therefore, the direct loss of Prime Farmland would remain a significant, irreversible and unavoidable impact of the project. Visual Resources Impact L.4. Construction of several of the proposed collection system and treatment plant improvements could have visual impacts at their locations. (Less than Significant) The Sonoma Trunk extension would be entirely underground and would have no permanent visual impacts. As explained above, the Tivoli Lift Station could be underground, with a small control panel and radio antenna above ground, or it could be partially above ground, in a structure like a shed or a small, one-story house. Even if the lift station is a small, one-story above-ground structure, it would not create a significant visual impact. The structure would not be out of character with nearby residences, commercial buildings, or proposed residential buildings in this part of the Tivoli development area. The upgrade to the Scenic Drive Lift Station could increase the size of the existing above-ground structure. Even if the upgraded lift station is a larger, one-story, above-ground structure, it would not create a significant visual impact. The existing structure is already partially below street grade, and it is partially shielded by trees and shrubs from the street. Even if enlarged, the structure would not be out of character with nearby residences. The proposed tertiary treatment modules would be entirely within the existing Secondary Plant and Ranch boundary. The facilities would not be more than 30 feet high. There are no scenic viewpoints that view the site. There is limited public opportunity to view the sites, primarily while driving along Jennings Road. The addition of more wastewater treatment facilities would not result in any significant visual impact. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.33 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Transportation and Circulation Impact L.5. Construction of the new wastewater collection and treatment facilities could impact traffic near the project site or near the Primary or Secondary Plants. (Less than Significant) Construction of the Sonoma Trunk extension would take place in existing or future road rights-of- way. Open cut construction in existing rights-of-way would mean temporary lane closures. Because these closures would be temporary and the surrounding area is currently developed, this would not result in a significant impact. Construction of the Tivoli Lift Station could result in temporary lane closures on Sylvan Avenue, Wood Sorrel Drive, or Aria Way, depending on the site selected. Sylvan Avenue is a two-lane street, and as part of the Tivoli project, Sylvan Avenue would be enlarged to be four lanes.91 If construction is necessary across or along Sylvan Avenue to connect the Sonoma Trunk extension to the Sonoma Trunk,92 temporary lane closures could result in short-term decreases in the level-of-service of Sylvan Avenue. These temporary impacts to traffic and parking would not be significant. Construction of Scenic Drive Lift Station upgrade, Beard Brook reliability project, and Cannery Segregation Line Diversion and rehabilitation of the River Trunk, crown spraying of the River and Sonoma Trunks, and rehabilitation of the existing Primary Effluent Outfall pipeline could cause temporary lane closures or parking displacement, due to construction below the street or simply access through manholes. Construction of these projects would cause small temporary increases in traffic due to construction trucks and other equipment and worker vehicles. These impacts to traffic and parking would not be significant, due to their temporary nature and the relatively small size of the construction crews and amount of equipment needed. For operation of the new treatment facilities at the Secondary Plant, the City may hire a few (less than 10) new employees. There may be a few more trips to the Secondary Plant for other types of supplies. Due to the small numbers of additional employees and additional supply trucks, there would be no significant impacts on traffic on nearby roads or parking within the facilities or near them. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. 91 Tivoli Specific Plan, p. 65. 92 It is unclear whether the stubbed out Sonoma Trunk already crosses Sylvan Avenue. It is unknown whether construction of the Tivoli Lift Station would require any construction in the Sylvan Avenue right- of-way. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.34 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Air Quality Impact L.6. Emissions of criteria pollutants during construction of wastewater system improvements would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. (Significant and Unavoidable) Section IV.E, Air Quality, provides background information on air pollutants associated with construction. Excavation and construction for the Sonoma Trunk extension, Tivoli Lift Station, other collection system improvements, and tertiary treatment equipment at the Secondary Plant would cause short-term dust emissions and emissions from construction equipment burning fossil fuels. Construction activities would include soil excavation and backfilling, grading, and equipment vehicular traffic using paved and unpaved roads. Soils exposed during construction activities would be subject to wind erosion. As a result, short-term dust emissions would cause a temporary increase in localized PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations compared to existing conditions. Construction-related impacts also result from emissions from construction equipment burning fossil fuels. The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions are considered by the California Air Resources Board to be the greatest pollutant of concern associated with construction activities. As explained in Section IV.E, Air Quality, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's (District) approach to CEQA analyses of construction impacts is to emphasize implementation of effective and comprehensive control measures rather than detailed quantification of emissions. From the District’s perspective, quantification of construction emissions is not necessary. The District has not developed pollution-specific quantitative threshold values for air emissions from construction activities. If all the PM10 control measures developed by the District are implemented, as appropriate, then the District considers air emissions from construction activities a less-than-significant impact. However, the City considers any net increase in PM10 emissions a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure L.6, below, would reduce the significance of this impact to the extent possible, but would still result in a net increase in emissions. Mitigation Measure L.6 Implement Mitigation Measure E.1 in the air quality section of this EIR, except that where Mitigation Measure E.1 indicates “project developers,” substitute “City of Modesto.” Implementation of Mitigation Measure L.6 would reduce the significance of this impact to the extent possible, but would still result in a net increase in emissions. Therefore, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.35 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact L.7. Emissions of criteria pollutants during operation of the proposed wastewater system improvements would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. (Significant and Unavoidable) Because the San Joaquin Valley is designated a nonattainment area for violations of the ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, any new emissions of these pollutants and their precursors could cause or contribute to continuing violations of state and national air quality standards. Stationary sources associated with the proposed project include emergency generators. The proposed project would also cause minor amounts of emissions from mobile sources during operation (additional truck and worker vehicles). The City proposes to build an emergency generator at the Tivoli Lift Station and an approximately 75 kilowatt emergency generator for Phase 1A equipment at the Secondary Plant.93 The emergency generators would be powered by diesel internal combustion engines. The engine and generator would be tested periodically, but under typical permit conditions, operation for maintenance, testing, and required regulatory purposes is limited to less than 150 to 200 hours per year.94 In addition, although the Scenic Drive Lift Station already has an emergency generator, because it is a large pump station, the City may decide in the future to increase the size of the generator due to enlarging the lift station. Diesel internal combustion engines emit particulates, as discussed in Section IV.E, and other compounds. Sulfur dioxide emissions are of particular concern.95 Emissions from engines to run emergency generators are difficult to estimate because forecasting power blackouts is difficult. The SJVAPCD would impose restrictions on emissions from the diesel-powered engines, as it does with the other emergency generators operated by the City for the wastewater system. Finally, the new treatment facilities would result in a few additional vehicle trips to the Secondary Plant, which would cause emissions of ozone precursors and particulates. Emissions of particulates and organic compounds from the emergency generators in a non- attainment area for particulates and ozone would be a significant impact. 93 E-mail from William Wong, Modesto Public Works Department, August 3, 2006. 94 See, e.g., San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District permits N-4265-2-0 and N-2885-2-0 for the City of Modesto Department of Public Works. 95 Based on air pollution permits similar engines operated by the City, the SJVAPCD would likely limit the sulfur content of the fuel to 0.05%. For example, the SJVAPCD limited the sulfur content of one of the City's diesel-fueled internal combustion engines (for a 200 kW generator) to 0.05% by weight. (Permit Unit N-3550-1-0, expired Jan. 31, 2006.) ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.36 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure L.7 The City shall abide by permit limits imposed by the SJVAPCD to reduce pollutant emissions from diesel-powered engines for emergency power generation. Even with mitigation, the contribution of particulates and organic compounds would be significant and unavoidable. Impact L.8. Emissions during project operation could cause sensitive receptors to be exposed to toxic air contaminants. (Less than Significant) At the Secondary Plant, the City would continue to use chlorine for disinfection until 2016, and use sulfur dioxide to dechlorinate prior to effluent discharge. These gases are acutely toxic, rather than chronically toxic (such as carcinogens), and the hazards associated with them are discussed under “Hazards” below. The tertiary treatment facilities at the Secondary Plant would use chemicals to assist in nitrification and denitrification and related processes. The primary coagulant would be ferric chloride in the rapid mix basin. Polymer in the flocculation chamber at the approximate rate of 20 lbs/day. These compounds are routinely used in wastewater treatment and would not result in hazardous airborne emissions. The nearest residences to the proposed tertiary facilities are more than one-half mile to the north and/or northwest. No significant impact to public health and safety is expected from the increase in use of chlorine and sulfur dioxide for disinfection (see Hazards below regarding accidents) and chemical use in the tertiary treatment. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. Impact L.9. Emissions of objectionable odors could occur during project operation. (Less than Significant) At the Secondary Plant, most of the proposed tertiary facilities96 have a low potential to generate the objectionable odors typically associated with wastewater treatment facilities, compared to other types of wastewater treatment processes or equipment headworks, anaerobic digestion, sludge handling). This is because the secondary effluent to be put through nitrification has little Biological Oxygen Demand to react and generate odors.97 In addition, the proposed tertiary treatment equipment has a low potential to produce odors of a chemical nature. 98 In addition, because the Secondary Plant is nearly surrounded by the City’s Ranch properties, there are few or no sensitive receptors. Odor complaints are logged on a special form and filed with 96 The nitrifying trickling filters in the 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment facilities have a potential to generate odor. Communication from Mike Britten, Carollo Engineers, 2005. 97 Meeting with City of Modesto Public Works staff and Carollo Engineers, August 10, 2005. 98 A field observation of tertiary facilities at Turlock, California's wastewater treatment plant, provided evidence of little or no odor from such facilities. Turnstone Consulting, site visit, Sept. 29, 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.37 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 operations; however, the City has not had any odor complaints in at least 3 to 4 years. Therefore, any increase in odors generated at the plant would result in a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. Noise As discussed in Section IV.F., noise levels at the project site are predominantly determined by nearby traffic and agricultural operations. Sensitive receptors in the project area are residences. Noise levels at the locations of the off-site collection system improvements are generally dominated by nearby streets or highways. Some of the locations for manhole access to pipes, e.g., for the Sonoma Trunk and River Trunk work, are in residential areas. Some access locations for the River Trunk work would be in relatively quiet recreational areas near the north bank of the Tuolumne River. Noise levels at the Secondary Plant and Ranch are determined by treatment plant operations truck movements and equipment) and agricultural operations. The only sensitive receptors nearby are residences spread out in the agricultural area. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. Impact L.10. Construction and operation of the new wastewater facilities to support development on the Tivoli site would result in changes in local noise levels. (Less than Significant) Construction Noise Construction of the Sonoma Trunk extension and Tivoli Lift Station Section would cause a temporary, less-than-significant noise impact. Section IV.F discusses construction noise at the project site and its impact in more detail. Construction of Scenic Drive Lift Station upgrade, Beard Brook reliability project, and Cannery Segregation Line Diversion and rehabilitation of the River Trunk, crown spraying of the River and Sonoma Trunks, and rehabilitation of the existing Primary Effluent Outfall pipeline would cause temporary noise increases nearby. As discussed in Section IV.F, these noise impacts would not be significant, even in residential areas, due to their temporary nature and the relatively small size of construction crews and amount of equipment needed. Construction at the Secondary Plant would not have a significant impact, as the plant is surrounded by agricultural land with few houses, and construction would be short in duration. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.38 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Operational Noise Turning to operation of the Tivoli Lift Station and Scenic Drive Lift Station upgrade, even the partially above-ground lift stations in the City generate little noise.99 The pumps are enclosed, and only a faint hum can be heard at the property boundary of a lift station that extends above ground. Lift stations that are completely underground are even harder to hear, if they can be heard at all.100 The proposed lift stations, whether partially above ground or completely underground, would not have a significant operational noise impact on nearby residences. The proposed treatment facilities at the Secondary Plant may create operational noise, but would not be particularly loud. Based on a site visit to a similar facility in Turlock,101 noise from the tertiary treatment processes and disinfection processes consist mainly of the sound of pumps and motors. At the Secondary Plant, the nearest residence to the northeastern treatment equipment is about one-half mile to the north. Operational noise from the proposed facilities would not significantly affect this or other residences. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. Hazards Impact L.11. Excavation for installation of wastewater system improvements could encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater and expose workers and the public to hazardous substances. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Section IV.G, Hazards, evaluates the potential for excavation for installation of utilities to encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater and expose workers and the public to hazardous substances. This discussion adequately covers construction of the Tivoli Lift Station, Sonoma Trunk extension, and other on-site collection pipes. (See Impact G.2.) Similar risks exist where excavation would be necessary for the Scenic Drive Lift Station upgrade, Beard Brook reliability project, Cannery Segregation Line Diversion,102 and new tertiary treatment facilities at the Secondary Plant. Implementation of the appropriate investigation and 99 Field observation of Woodland Lift Station at Woodland Ave. and Poust Road in eastern Modesto. Turnstone Consulting, site visit, August 10, 2005. 100 During one site visit, no noise could be heard from the Hahn Lift Station on Nightgale Drive near Honey Creek Road in northeastern Modesto. Turnstone Consulting, site visit, August 10, 2005. 101 Turnstone Consulting, field observation, Turlock Tertiary Wastewater Treatment Plant, September 29, 2005. 102 Regarding pipelines such as CSL-2, when using the “cut and cover” method for trenching, excavated soils would likely be placed back in the trench after pipe installation. However, excavated soils may not all be able to be placed back into the trench or may not be feasible based on engineering considerations. Materials not placed back in the trench should be tested prior to off-site disposal, if the presence of hazardous substances is suspected. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.39 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 remediation as described in the mitigation measure below would reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. Mitigation Measure L.11 Prior to excavation for construction for the improvements to the wastewater collection and treatment systems for near-term development, the City shall use reasonable means to determine the presence of soil or groundwater contamination. Those reasonable means may consist of tracer gas surveys, soil or groundwater sampling, and/or conducting a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and, if necessary, a Phase II assessment, in accordance with the most recent ASTM International standard.103 Where the results of these studies indicate that soil or groundwater contamination is present, any necessary remediation shall be conducted. In addition, the policies of Section M.2.c of the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan would be implemented. Section M.2.c. states that in the event that site inspection of construction activities uncovers chemical contamination, underground storage tanks, abandoned drums, or other hazardous materials or wastes at a parcel, the inspection report preparer shall so notify the City. The City shall notify the County Health Services Department. Under the direction of these agencies, a site remediation plan shall be prepared by the project applicant. The plan would: specify measures to be taken to protect workers and the public from exposure to the potential site hazards and certify that the proposed remediation measures would clean up the wastes, dispose of the wastes, and protect public health in accordance with federal, state and local requirements. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure L.11, the impact of potential release of, and exposure to, hazardous materials would be less than significant. Impact L.12. Increased use of chlorine and sulfur dioxide at the Secondary Plant could expose workers and the public to accidental release of toxic gases. (Less than Significant) Currently, the City disinfects using chlorine. Chlorine is a strong oxidizer and reacts with water to form hydrochloric and hypochlorous acids. Chlorine is an irritant and in sufficient concentrations can be corrosive to the eyes and skin. It can cause lung injury, and even death. After disinfection of the effluent, the City uses sulfur dioxide to neutralize the chlorine, for effluent that is discharged to the San Joaquin River. Sulfur dioxide is irritating to the lungs, skin, and eyes. 103 ASTM International was originally known as the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.40 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Chlorine is stored in cylinders in the southwest portion of the treatment plant site. Sulfur dioxide is stored in cylinders in the same building. The nearest residences (farmhouses) to this storage building are more than one-half mile to the north and/or northwest. The City prepared a Risk Management Plan (RMP) concerning its operations at the Secondary Plant.104 An RMP evaluates worst-case chemical release scenarios. The worst-case scenario must consider release of the largest quantity of a regulated substance in a single vessel at any time. For the chlorination system, the container holds 2,000 pounds (lbs) of liquid chlorine, and the worst-case release would be 2,000 lbs of chlorine at 200 lbs per minute for 10 minutes.105 For dechlorination, the container holds 50,000 pounds of pressurized sulfur dioxide, and the worst- case release would be 50,000 lbs of sulfur dioxide at 5,000 lbs per minute for 10 minutes.106 The RMP evaluates these releases based on worst-case assumptions for air dispersion modeling. The results were as follows. The level of concern was 3 parts per million (ppm) for each gas. The distance from the chlorination facility to where the concentration of chlorine would be 3 ppm was 6 miles.107 Using 1990 Census data, the area includes 14,512 people.108 The distance from the sulfur dioxide facility to where the concentration of sulfur dioxide would be 3 ppm was 39.9 miles.109 Using 1990 Census data, the corresponding area includes 1,040,932 people.110 Such releases would have a very low probability of occurring. The additional wastewater flow at the Secondary Plant would also require disinfection. The existing chlorination system would be used to provide disinfection until 2016.111 There would be a slight increase in use of chlorine and sulfur dioxide due to the 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment. The increase in chlorine and sulfur dioxide due to the Tivoli project would correspond to about 1.1 mgd. A very rough estimate of the increase, based on the increase in average dry weather 104 Base Associates, Risk Management Plan for City of Modesto Secondary Wastewater Treatment Plant, undated (“Secondary Plant RMP”). 105 Secondary Plant RMP, p. 4-1. 106 Secondary Plant RMP, p. 4-1. 107 Secondary Plant RMP, p. 4-4. 108 Ibid. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid. 111 After 2016, the City plans to use either sodium hypochlorite or ultraviolet light, or both, for disinfection, thereby reducing the use of chlorine and sulfur dioxide. Sodium hypochlorite is essentially a pelletized form of bleach. It would arrive by truck in solid form. The risk of any harm to neighbors from sodium hypochlorite use would be negligible, because of the form of the chemical (dry pellets) and because neighbors are relatively far away. Ultraviolet light treatment would also not present a risk to the public. Use of sodium hypochlorite and/or ultraviolet light treatment for disinfection would reduce the use of chlorine and sulfur dioxide, which would reduce the risk of accidental release of chlorine and sulfur dioxide. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.41 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 flow due to the Tivoli project is 4 percent.112 This incremental increase would not result in a substantial change in the risk of accidental release of chlorine or sulfur dioxide gas under existing conditions and would not result in a significant environmental impact. Should the City switch away from using chlorine and sulfur dioxide around 2016 to less hazardous materials, as planned, the risks of accidental release would drop. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. Solid Waste113 The City of Modesto generated approximately 356,395 tons of solid waste per year, or an average of about 1,000 tons per day in 2000. This number is projected to increase to 514,630 tons by the year 2015, an average annual increase of about 3.7 percent. Modesto was one of the first cities in California to adopt a solid waste recycling program, in the early 1970s. About 62 percent of the City’s solid waste is diverted by source reduction, recycling and composting activities.114 The Stanislaus Resource Recovery Facility is the primary facility for disposal of the solid waste generated in Modesto, and the Fink Road115 and the Forward Inc. Class III Landfills116 are secondary disposal facilities. The Sanitary Landfill division of the Stanislaus County Public Works Department operates the Fink Road landfill. An estimated 10,000 to 20,000 dry tons of biosolids are generated each year at the City’s wastewater treatment plants and are beneficially reused as soil amendment under Waste Discharge Requirements Order 94-030.117, 118 Currently, biosolids removed as part of the wastewater treatment process are transported to the Secondary Plant for additional screening and then applied to the City’s ranch land.119 112 The average dry weather flow is currently 25.8 mgd, as discussed above. The increment from Tivoli would be about 1.1 mgd, as discussed above. Thus, 1.1 / 25.8 = 113 See footnote 2 regarding consideration of solid waste. 114 Urban Area General Plan Final Master EIR, p. V-15-8. 115 The Fink Road landfill operates under the Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the Central Valley Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board in Order No. 94-257. 116 A Class III landfill accepts household and typical commercial and industrial solid waste, but not hazardous materials. 117 Final Master EIR, p. V-15-2. 118 Telephone conversation with Aaron Trott, Facilities Manager at the Primary Plant, December 7, 2005. (Over 12,000 cubic yards of biosolids are captured from the Primary Plant and sent to the Secondary Plant and Ranch.) 119 Terry Spurgeon, Facilities Manager, Department of Public Works, Secondary Plant, telephone conversation with Turnstone Consulting, December 7, 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.42 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact L.13. Additional solid waste would be generated by new, near-term wastewater treatment facilities. (Less than Significant) The 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment is expected to generate about 800 lbs/day of biosolids, 120 which would be discharged to the facultative ponds.121 Inorganic materials sand and grit) would be minimal, since few inorganics pass through the secondary treatment system.122 The generation of biosolids would not be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. Biological Resources On-Site Collection System Improvements Section IV.H, Biological Resources, discusses the biological resources on the project site. Any impacts from construction of the Sonoma Trunk extension and Tivoli Lift Station are within the potential impacts discussed in that section, because these facilities would be located in the Tivoli project site. Each and every mitigation measure in Section IV.H for the project site would apply to construction of the Sonoma Trunk extension and Tivoli Lift Station. Off-Site Collection System Improvements Except for the Beard Brook reliability project and Cannery Segregation Line Diversion, construction of the collection system improvements would take place in streets, urbanized land, highly disturbed areas, or landscaped areas, where no significant biological impacts would occur. Biologists categorize these as suburban, rural residential,123 and urban areas. Construction of Beard Brook reliability project and Cannery Segregation Line Diversion (portion designated CSL-1) would take place near Dry Creek and could affect riparian habitat. Construction activities for the Scenic Drive Lift Station upgrade would take place near the north bank of Dry Creek, but are less likely to affect riparian areas. 120 E-mail from Dan Wilkowsky, Modesto Public Works Dept., July 12, 2006. 121 E-mail from Paul Liu, Community Economic & Development Department, July 11, 2006. 122 E-mail from Dan Wilkowsky, Modesto Public Works Dept., July 12, 2006. 123 Suburban or rural residential areas largely devoid of native vegetation, and tend to support a wide variety of non-native ornamental and ruderal plant species, such as ornamental, non-native tree species, including eucalyptus (Eucalpytus sp.) and cork oak (Quercus suber). Suburban and rural residential landscapes typically provide habitat for common species accustomed to human disturbance. Common backyard birds likely to be present at these sites include Western Scrub-Jays (Aphelocoma californica), American Robins (Turdus migratorius), Northern Mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), House Finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), and House Sparrows (Passer domesticus). Western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) and desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audobonii) may be present in the vicinity of wood or brush piles. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.43 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Vegetation along the southern bank of Dry Creek includes introduced and native species, such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), box elder (Acer negundo), giant reed (Arundo donax), dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Johnsongrass, a species of privet (Ligustrum sp.), and a non-native, cultivated species of oak (Quercus suber). Beyond this vegetation, the banks transition into landscaped grounds on the Gallo Winery. The vegetation along the northern bank in Beard Brook Park is relatively sparse. Species growing along the margins of the creek and the sandy slopes above the creek included cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), pokeweed, carelessweed, Mexican sprangletop, Mexican lovegrass, and hairy crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis). Valley oaks (Quercus lobata) are present in upland areas of the park. The leaf litter and fallen branches in riparian habitats may provide cover for amphibians such as western toad (Bufo boreas) and Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla). Several lizards are also common in these areas, including western fence lizard, Gilbert’s skink (Eumeces gilberti), and southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata). Snakes that may be found in riparian habitats include the racer (Coluber constrictor), common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula), Pacific gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer), and common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis). Riparian habitats provide breeding and foraging areas for a wide range of avian species. Woodpeckers, such as Nuttall’s Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii) and Northern Flicker (Colaptes auratus), excavate nest holes in trees. Abandoned nest holes are utilized by other birds such as Ash Throated Flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens) and Western Screech Owl (Otus kennicottii). Other avian species include Yellow-billed Magpie (Pica nuttalli), Western Scrub-Jay, Northern Oriole (Icterus galbula), and Bewick’s Wren (Thryomanes bewickii). Small mammals occurring in riparian habitats may include the ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus), California vole, and desert cottontail. Predators such as the long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata) and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus) are likely to be attracted to the wooded riparian habitats due to the abundance of prey. The potential impacts and associated mitigation measures for construction in or near the Dry Creek riparian area are discussed below. Primary Effluent Outfall Pipeline Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of the existing Primary Effluent Outfall pipeline would be performed using access portals on either side of the Tuolumne River. The construction portals would be located in developed areas that are devoid of native riparian vegetation and habitat for special-status species. However, if construction activities exceeded the planned boundaries, riparian habitat could be affected. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.44 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The banks above the Tuolumne River on the Primary Plant site are not thickly vegetated. Species observed growing on the north side of the Tuolumne River included western jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), willow (Salix sp.), barnyardgrass, evening primrose (Oenothera sp.), and Coulter’s conyza (Conyza coulteri). Species present on the south side of the river include sycamore (Platanus sp.) and willow (Salix sp.). Potential wildlife in these riparian areas is as discussed above for Dry Creek. Impact L.14. Impacts to Biological Resources and Regulated Habitats of Dry Creek and Tuolumne River. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction described above near Dry Creek and the Tuolumne River could affect valley oak trees, sensitive riparian resources, and regulated habitats outside of the immediate vicinity of the planned construction areas. If construction activities are carried out as proposed, impacts on these resources would be avoided and not result in significant impacts. However, if construction activities require removal of oak trees or would encroach into regulated habitats or disturb native vegetation, significant impacts under CEQA could result. Implementation of the following avoidance or mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure L.14. Pre-Construction Surveys and Agency Coordination. Pre-construction surveys should be conducted prior to project-related activities that may impact the resources of Dry Creek or the Tuolumne River in order to identify significant impacts. If Dry Creek, the Tuolumne River, or their tributaries are impacted by project activities, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) would be required. If regulated habitats are impacted by project activities, USACE permits and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG would be required. Early consultation with the USACE and CDFG is recommended to determine adequate protocols, as project modification and/or mitigation measures may be necessary and would require agency approval. If construction activities would result in impacts to special-status species, mitigation measures for that species described in the impact sections below should be implemented. If surveys indicate that impacts would result to a special-status species not identified in this EIR or for which mitigation measures are not described in this EIR, avoidance and minimization measures to reduce project impacts to less than significant levels should be determined through coordination with the City of Modesto, CDFG, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The proposed location of the 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment at the Secondary Plant is currently agricultural land. In addition, freshwater emergent wetland habitat was observed in a slough that runs east to west just north of the proposed location of the 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.45 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 (See Figure IV.L.4.) Piping to connect the 2.3 mgd of treatment equipment to the rest of the Secondary Plant would cross this wetland. The agricultural and other disturbed land where the 2.3 mgd of tertiary facilities would lie can be characterized as disturbed ruderal124 habitats. Disturbed ruderal habitats are those habitats in which vegetative cover has been largely removed by mechanical means on agricultural lands, as in recently disked fields or along the margins of actively cultivated fields. Bare soil and irregular patches of ruderal plant species characterize this habitat. Plant species occurring in these areas include barnyardgrass (Echinochloa aristata), Mexican sprangletop (Leptochloa uninervia), berumdagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense), carelessweed (Amaranthus palmeri), Mexican lovegrass (Eragrostis mexicana ssp. virescens), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), heliotrope (Heliotropicum curassavicum), western jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), and a number of other species, none of which occur in large populations. Disturbed habitats within the project area are of limited value to wildlife due to the lack of vegetative cover. Common species such as Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura) and Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) occasionally forage in such areas. Field observation of the freshwater emergent wetland habitat at this location revealed the following. Dense stands of bulrush (Scirpus sp.), duckweed (Lemna sp.), cattail (Typha sp.), and smartweed (Polygonum sp.) were observed in parts of the slough. Other species such as heliotrope occupy the margins of the slough, but were not cataloged as part of the reconnaissance- level survey. Wildlife species that may use the freshwater habitat in the project area include exotic bullfrogs (Rana catesbieana), Great Egret (Ardea alba), Snowy Egret (Egretta thula), Sora (Porzana carolina), American Coot (Fulica americana), Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and Red-winged blackbirds (Agelaius phoeniceus). Because the near-term facilities have not been designed, the analysis below takes into account the highest biological values at the Secondary Plant site, and provides mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact L.15. Loss of Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The City of Modesto owns lands comprising suitable Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat in the vicinity of the Secondary Plant. Coordination with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is recommended, as the preservation of CDFG-approved foraging habitat on City-owned property through a conservation easement may be possible. There is suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks in areas associated with treatment plant improvements. Construction could 124 A ruderal plant is a plant that is first to colonize disturbed lands. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.46 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 result in the loss of foraging habitat, resulting in a significant adverse effect to this state- threatened species through habitat modification. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impact on this species to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure L.15. Implement Mitigation Measure H.4 and Mitigation Measure H.5. Impact L.16. Loss of Occupied Burrowing Owl Habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) While no Burrowing Owls or signs of their presence, such as feathers, droppings, pellets, or prey remains, were observed in the Secondary Plant area during a reconnaissance-level survey, they are likely to inhabit pastures, fallow fields, and canal and railway right-of-ways where ground squirrels have been allowed to invade. Furthermore, suitable habitat for Burrowing Owls is present in areas associated with the 2.3 mgd tertiary treatment improvements. If Burrowing Owls are present within a construction zone, or adjacent to such an area, at the time of construction, disturbance could destroy occupied burrows. Construction during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. The loss of occupied Burrowing Owl habitat (habitat known to have been occupied by owls during the nesting season within the past 3 years) or reductions in the number of this rare species within Stanislaus County, directly or indirectly through nest abandonment or reproductive suppression, would constitute a significant impact. Furthermore, raptors, including owls and their nests, are protected under both federal and state laws and regulations, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 (see “Disturbance of Nesting Raptors” below). Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impact on this species to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure L.16. Implement Mitigation Measures H.6a and H.6b. Impact L.17. Disturbance of Nesting Raptors. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Swainson’s Hawks, burrowing owls, white-tailed kites, and several other raptor species are known, or are expected, to nest in the vicinity of the treatment plant improvements. Raptors eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected under both federal and state law. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a “taking” by the CDFG. Loss of fertile raptor eggs or nesting raptors, or any activities resulting in raptor nest abandonment, could constitute a significant impact if the species is particularly rare in the region. Construction activities such as tree removal, site grading, etc., that disturb a nesting raptor on-site or ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.47 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 immediately adjacent to the construction zone could constitute a significant impact. The mitigation measures described below would reduce the potential for significant impacts to less- than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure L.17. Implement Mitigation Measure H.4. Impact L.18. Impacts to Regulated Habitats Associated with Improvements to the Secondary Plant. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction activities within jurisdictional waters of the United States are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and/or CDFG. The placement of fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. Furthermore, no USACE permit will be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. CDFG asserts jurisdiction over stream courses and waterways as stated in sections 1600-1607 of the California Fish and Game Code, and also maintains a “no net loss” policy related to wetlands. Construction activities that impact areas under the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE or CDFG (including those areas defined as “wetlands” under CDFG policy) are considered significant under CEQA. Based on a review of site conditions in the vicinity of the Secondary Plant, the proposed 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment location, and the alignment of waterways and canals in the area, several waterways, including the drainage channel north of the tertiary treatment location, drain into Waters of the U.S., and thus are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (See Regulated Habitats subsection in Section IV.H.) Furthermore, areas under the regulatory jurisdiction of CDFG, and areas meeting the policy definition of “wetlands” are located in the vicinity of the Secondary Plant. If construction activities associated with the expansion of the Secondary Plant are carried out as proposed, and these resources are impacted, significant impacts would result. Resources that might be affected include the wetlands at or near the 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment and wetlands or canals that might be crossed by proposed piping between the tertiary facilities and the rest of the Secondary Plant. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure L.18a. Microtunnel under slough near 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment. The City shall use microtunneling techniques to cross the east-west slough to the north of the proposed 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment. By using microtunneling techniques, the City will go under the slough, rather than crossing it at the surface. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.48 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure L.18b. Pre-Construction Surveys and Agency Coordination. This mitigation measure pertains to microtunneling across the east-west slough north of the proposed 2.3 mgd of tertiary treatment (including the construction access portals) and also pertains to any wetlands or canals that might be crossed by proposed piping between the tertiary facilities and the rest of the Secondary Plant. Pre-construction surveys should be conducted prior to project-related activities that may impact wetland areas and those areas potentially under the jurisdiction of the USACE and/or CDFG in order to identify significant impacts. If these areas would be impacted by project activities, USACE permits and a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFG would be required. These agencies would request adequate measures to offset impacts to riparian and aquatic resources. Early consultation with the USACE and CDFG is recommended to determine adequate protocol, as project modification and/or mitigation measures may be necessary and would require agency approval. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact L.19. Construction activities could result in degradation of water quality by reducing the quality of storm water runoff. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Groundbreaking and construction activities would occur for the wastewater system improvements. Construction, grading, and excavation could result in exposure of soil to runoff, potentially causing erosion and entrainment of sediment in the runoff. Soil stockpiles and excavated areas would be exposed to runoff and, if not managed properly, the runoff could cause erosion and increased sedimentation in storm sewers. The potential for chemical releases is present at most construction sites. Once released, substances such as fuels, oils, paints, and solvents could be transported to surface waters and/or groundwater in storm water runoff, wash water, and dust control water, potentially reducing the quality of the receiving waters. The location for the tertiary treatment facility in the southwestern portion of the Secondary Plant drains internally to the plant. It would not drain directly to receiving waters and therefore any impacts associated with increased erosion and sedimentation during construction would be expected to be minimal. By implementing the best management practices of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan the City would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.49 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Mitigation Measure L.19 The City shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction period of the wastewater system components (whether or not the particular portion of the project disturbs more than one acre). The shall emphasize measures designed to minimize erosion and off-site sedimentation. Impact L.20. Implementation of the proposed project may result in surface water quality degradation due to pollutant loading associated with treated effluent discharges. (Less than Significant) The proposed increase in Secondary Plant treatment capacity would result in an increase in the quantity of treated effluent that must be discharged (where the increase in flow is due to near- term development). Treated wastewater contains residual pollutants that, if discharged at rates that exceed the assimilative capacity of the receiving systems, could impact surface water quality. Treated effluent from all of Modesto's wastewater treatment facilities is collected and treated before being discharged into the San Joaquin River, a water body that is listed as impaired by the The has designated the San Joaquin River as water quality impaired for boron, electrical conductivity (often referred to as salinity), several pesticides (chlorpyrifos, DDT, diazinon, and Group A pesticides), unknown toxicity, and selenium.125 If the project could increase the load of any of these pollutants discharged to the river, then a significant impact would be expected to occur. (The has determined that the assimilative capacity of the San Joaquin River for these pollutants has already been exceeded). The San Joaquin River has been identified as a Water Quality Limited Segment under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.126 125 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2002 CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segment, Central Valley approved by U.S. EPA, July 2003. 126 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.50 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The 303(d) listing requires development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL).127 The for boron, electrical conductivity, diazinon, and chlorpyrifos are designated as “high” priority; the remaining pollutant are designated “medium” and “low” priority. High priority have established schedules for completion (the high priority for the San Joaquin River have dues dates of 2003 and 2004). The has issued draft TMDL reports for boron and salinity (EC) and diazinon and chlorpyrifos. The City’s discharge is subject to a regulatory permit from the The potential impacts to San Joaquin River water quality associated with treated wastewater discharges are adequately mitigated by existing site-specific and regional regulatory programs. Order No. 5-01-120 regulates the direct discharges to the river, specifying maximum constituent levels, quantity, and timing of discharges. Updated or new orders in the future would be expected to continue this system. The TMDL program is developing an approach to address regional cumulative impacts associated with pollutants identified in the river at levels that affect beneficial uses. It is likely that the proposed project will result in a minor net benefit to water quality discharges as a result of the introduction of the tertiary water treatment system. This potential impact is adequately mitigated by existing regulatory programs. Mitigation Measure. None necessary. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Collection System Improvements As discussed in Section IV.J, regarding the Tivoli project site, the Initial Study has determined that issues of strong ground shaking, soil erosion, and loss of topsoil would be less-than- significant impacts, and that there would be no impacts related to seismically-induced fault rupture, liquefaction, or landslides. These conclusions equally apply to the Tivoli Lift Station, Sonoma Trunk extension, and other smaller collectors. Potentially significant impacts for these facilities are related to differential settlement and unstable and expansive soils. 127 On a broad level, the TMDL process leads to a “pollution budget” designed to restore the health of a polluted body of water. The TMDL process provides a quantitative assessment of water quality problems, contributing sources of pollution, and the pollutant load reductions or control actions needed to restore and protect the beneficial uses of an individual water body impaired from loading of a particular pollutant. More specifically, a TMDL is defined as the sum of the individual waste load allocations for point sources, load allocations for nonpoint sources, and natural background such that the capacity of the water body to assimilate pollutant loading (the loading capacity) is not exceeded (40 CFR §130.2). In other words, a TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards that will ensure the protection of beneficial uses. This calculation also includes a margin of safety and consideration of seasonal variations. In addition, the TMDL contains the reductions needed to meet water quality standards and allocates those reductions among the pollutant sources in the watershed. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.51 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact L.21. The Tivoli Lift Station, Sonoma Trunk extension, and smaller collector pipes in the Specific Plan area could be adversely affected by expansive soils or by settlement of project soils. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Soils underlying portions of the project site have moderate to high shrink/swell potential.128 This condition could significantly damage structures and utilities. In addition, non-uniformly compacted imported fill placed at the site could experience settlement under new structural loads. Structural damage and rupture of utility lines may occur if the potential expansive soils and the nature of the imported fill were not considered during design and construction of improvements. Mitigation Measure L.21 In locations underlain by expansive soils and/or non-engineered fill, the designers of the Tivoli Lift Station and sewer pipes shall consider these conditions. The design-level geotechnical investigation, to be prepared by licensed professionals and approved by the City Engineer, shall include measures to ensure potential damages related to expansive soils and non-uniformly compacted fill are minimized. Mitigation options may range from removal of the problematic soils and replacement, as needed, with properly conditioned and compacted fill, to design and construction of improvements to withstand the forces exerted during the expected shrink-swell cycles and settlements. All mitigation measures, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the geotechnical and soils report shall be followed to reduce impacts associated with shrink-swell soils to a less-than- significant level. Impact L.22. Differential settlement at the project site could result in damage to wastewater system improvements. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Grading the project site before buildings and utilities are constructed would result in areas of cut and fill. Fills of different thickness and fills adjacent to cut areas where native soils are exposed at the surface could create the potential for differential settlement. Buried sewer lines constructed early in the development process at Tivoli, such as the extension of the Sonoma Trunk, may experience differential settlement along their alignments. Mitigation Measure L.22 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for each development site in the Tivoli Specific Plan area, a site-specific grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. The grading plan shall include specific recommendations for 128 Natural Resources Conservation Service website, NCSS Web Soil Survey 1.1 for Eastern Stanislaus Area, http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app, accessed December 19, 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.52 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 mitigating potential settlement associated with fill placement and areas of different fill thickness in relation to then-existing wastewater collection facilities. In addition, the City shall inspect sewer lines after adjacent construction has been completed and shall remedy any differential settlement of wastewater collection facilities. This mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Secondary Plant Improvements For the proposed treatment facilities, the City would have site-specific geotechnical investigation reports prepared to detect site conditions that could result in liquefaction129 and to identify appropriate design requirements that would prevent seismic damage to structures. These reports would also consider whether expansive soils or settlement hazards exist. The facilities would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code (CBC) as adopted by the City of Modesto and would incorporate current geotechnical design principles. The treatment facilities at the Secondary Plant would not be subject to landslides or erosion. The project would not contribute to any seismic activity nor be subject to landslides induced by seismic activity. Liquefaction induced by seismic activity would be prevented by incorporating site-specific geological data in designs of structures. Therefore, the impact of geology and seismicity on the treatment facilities would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be necessary. Water Supply The proposed collection system improvements, including the Tivoli Lift Station and Sonoma Trunk extension, would not result in a substantial increase in the demand for water resources, as the collection system would collect and convey wastewater and would not use any water resources once constructed. Population and Housing The proposed collection system improvements and additional facilities at the Secondary Plant would result in fewer than 10 permanent employees. This addition of new employees would not by itself constitute substantial population growth, nor would it have a significant impact on housing. 129 Liquefaction is possible in loose, water-saturated materials (predominantly sands) during an earthquake. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.53 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact L.23. Extension of the Sonoma Trunk and construction of the collection system improvements would provide wastewater collection capacity for population growth that could cause the City to exceed its population projections. (Significant and Unavoidable). Extension of the Sonoma Trunk through the Tivoli project site, and construction of the collection system improvements that would take the wastewater to the Primary Plant, would help serve anticipated growth to the north in the Roselle-Claribel CPD. Only a portion of the Roselle-Claribel CPD would be served by the Sonoma Trunk extension and any further extension of that trunk, i.e., units in the rectangle formed by Oakdale Road., Kiernan Avenue Roselle Avenue and the planned Claratina Avenue on the north.130 The eastern portion of the CPD bounded by Sylvan Avenue., Roselle Avenue., Kiernan Avenue., and roughly by Claus Rd. would be served by an extension of the Lakewood Trunk.131 Section IV.N, Population and Housing, Impact N.1, analyzes the impact of buildout of the Tivoli site and also buildout of the Roselle-Claribel CPD at a similar density to Tivoli. This analysis concludes that the proposed project would induce population growth beyond that projected for this CPD and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Thus, extension of the collection system through the Tivoli site and other collection system improvements to serve the rest of the CPD would have a similar significant and unavoidable impact. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation available. Impact L.24. Construction of the near-term tertiary treatment facilities would provide wastewater treatment capacity for population growth that could cause the City to exceed its population projections. (Less than significant) Turning to the 2.3 mgd of near-term tertiary treatment capacity, along with the DAF units, these facilities would accommodate anticipated near-term development of approximately 12,728 EDUs currently in process and or expected over the next five years, including development in the Tivoli Specific Plan area (2006 to 2011). This would translate into approximately 36,400 residents (12,728 residential units multiplied by 2.86 persons per household). The 12,728 residential units would make up approximately 9 percent of the total number of units projected in 2025. The 36,400 potential residents would represent approximately 9 percent of the City’s estimated population (400,000) in 2025. 130 Claratina Avenue has not been constructed east of Coffee Road. It is a designated future extension for a Class B Expressway in the Urban Area General Plan. The project proposal includes changing the designation from an Expressway to a Principal Arterial. 131 Wastewater Master Plan Collection, June 2006, Table 5.2. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.54 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Based on these percentages, housing construction in the area that would be served by the 2.3 mgd treatment facilities beyond Tivoli would contribute to an increase in Modesto’s population over a 20-year planning horizon, but would not cause the City to exceed its projections. Therefore, any population growth induced by the proposed project would not result in a significant impact. The proposed DAF units (and Secondary Plant improvements) would be sufficient to serve Tivoli, without guaranteeing Tivoli this capacity. The City would allocate its expanded wastewater treatment and disposal capability as need arises (and would have to stop development, if the need arises). Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. Cultural Resources Regarding the Sonoma Trunk extension and Tivoli Lift Station, the Initial Study determined that there is a low probability for cultural artifacts to be found at the Tivoli site, and if found, appropriate mitigation measures would be taken. In addition, there are no historical buildings of significance at the site. Riparian areas in Modesto have the potential to contain archaeological sites. Therefore, it is possible that cultural artifacts could be encountered during construction of the Beard Brook reliability project, the Cannery Segregation Line Diversion (eastern portion, CSL-1), the rehabilitation of the existing Primary Effluent Outfall where access is gained near the Tuolumne River, or the Scenic Drive Lift Station upgrade. Regarding the Secondary Plant, a prehistoric site was found and fenced off at the Secondary Plant. Surveys performed for the Master EIR on the 1995 Wastewater Master Plan did not detect any additional archaeological or historic resources where sewer facilities were planned at that time. Safeguards from the Urban Area General Plan would be incorporated into the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan and the collection and treatment facilities construction documents to protect any archaeological resources. The Urban Area General Plan policy states that in the event that construction activities involve discovery of buried archaeological deposits, the project sponsor would temporarily halt activities in the vicinity, notify the City of Modesto of the discovery, and consult a qualified archaeologist to assess the resource and provide proper mitigation recommendations. If human remains are discovered, the project sponsors would immediately contact the Stanislaus County Coroner’s Office, who would contact the Native American Heritage Commission to notify the appropriate closest descendant. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.55 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Energy The City of Modesto’s wastewater collection and treatment operations use energy in the form of electricity and natural gas for pumping, lighting, heating, and cooling. In addition, gasoline and diesel fuel are used for motor vehicles. The Tivoli Lift Station and Scenic Drive Lift Station upgrade would run on electricity, but would also have standby diesel generators for emergency use. The tertiary treatment facilities at the Secondary Plant would result in increases in the amounts of natural gas and electricity used. The energy usage would not be unusual or wasteful for the type of activities proposed and would not be in amounts that would cause unusual depletion of natural resources. Therefore, the project would not have a significant environmental impact on energy resources. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative Impacts: Wastewater Services Impact L.25. The City's wastewater collection and treatment system would not have adequate capacity to serve the project, along with anticipated cumulative development. (Significant and Unavoidable) As discussed above, the City's engineering consultant prepared a Domestic Wastewater Near Term Capacity Study regarding wastewater contributions from near-term development (including the Tivoli project). Anticipated near-term development includes approximately 12,728 EDUs through 2011. These EDUs are expected to generate an average dry weather flow (ADWF) of 3.7 mgd of wastewater. The contribution of the Tivoli project would be about 1.1 mgd ADWF. For the longer-term planning period extending to 2025, the City's Wastewater Master Plan Collection (in progress) analyzes which trunk sewers would be enlarged, replaced, or rehabilitated to serve existing and future development. The City's 2006 Wastewater Master Plan Treatment (in progress) describes the treatment and disposal facilities that would be installed to serve existing and future, expected growth under the City's Urban Area General Plan until 2025. As discussed above, various portions of the City's collection and treatment system would need to be upgraded or expanded to serve the needs of the Tivoli project, along with anticipated growth in the Roselle/Claribel CPD and anticipated growth elsewhere in the City's planning area. As discussed above under Impact L.1, all on-site collection system improvements would be installed by the project developer prior to or concurrent with development of the project. The proposed off-site improvements to the City’s wastewater collection systems will be constructed as necessary to serve development of the project area. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.56 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The City is in the process of updating its Wastewater Master Plan and its wastewater rates and capacity charges, as the current rates and capacity charges are not adequate to pay for the repairs and upgrades to the City’s existing systems that would be necessary to serve the Tivoli Specific Plan area. The City anticipates that the new rates and fees would be in effect by summer 2007 and that bond funding for construction of the necessary improvements would be available by approximately spring 2008. The new rate and fee program would include increased capacity charges which would serve as a mitigation impact fee program to pay for the additional infrastructure necessary to serve new growth within the City’s sphere of influence. Prior to issuance of a building permit, project applicants would be required to contribute toward their fair share of these improvements through payment of the adopted capacity charges. The City anticipates that the new rates and fees would be in effect and adequate funding would be available to ensure the improvements necessary to serve the Tivoli Specific Plan area would be complete and operational prior to development of this area. However, in the event that the new rates and fees are not adopted or funding is not available to ensure the timely completion of these improvements prior to development of the project area, the project sponsors or project applicants would be required to fund construction of all off-site improvements necessary to serve the Specific Plan. In addition, prior to or concurrent with development, the project developers shall fund and install all off-site infrastructure that is necessary to serve the development. As discussed under L.2, above, additional improvements to the City’s wastewater treatment facilities are also needed to serve the Tivoli project area. Therefore, the City is proposing to add tertiary treatment and a higher level of disinfection at the Secondary Plant in multiple phases over time. However, until the tertiary treatment is available, the additional wastewater from the Tivoli project could cause the City to exceed its own recently adopted treatment and discharge standards. Because the City has not yet secured a permit to construct the near-term tertiary treatment facility from the or adopted a funding mechanism to ensure that the tertiary treatment will be available in a timely manner, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure L.25. Implement Mitigation Measures L.1 and L.2. Mitigation Measures L.1 and L.2 require the project sponsor and any future applicants to pay the sewer rates and capacity charges that are being updated. The updated sewer rates and capacity charges fund the City wastewater collection and treatment system. If the updated rates and capacity charge are not adopted prior to project development, then the project sponsors shall be required to fund the improvements. However, because the new rate and fee program has not yet been adopted nor bonds issued for any of the near term treatment or disposal improvements, the City cannot assure that adequate funding to pay for the necessary improvements will be available in a timely manner so as to assure the completion of the treatment and disposal facility ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation L. Utilities and Services Systems Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.57 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 improvements prior to development of this area. In addition, the City cannot commence tertiary treatment without a new NPDES permit from the The is encouraged to issue the new NPDES permit in a manner that would allow for successful implementation of the City’s proposed tertiary treatment. While the City is optimistic that an appropriate NPDES permit will eventually be issued, this action is beyond the City’s jurisdiction and control and therefore the City cannot assure that the necessary treatment and disposal infrastructure will be permitted prior to development. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Impacts: Agricultural Resources Impact L.26. Implementation of the proposed project would incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of prime agricultural land in the Modesto area and in eastern Stanislaus County. (Significant and Unavoidable) The construction of 2.3 mgd of tertiary capacity would make an incremental contribution to the cumulative loss of Prime Farmland in eastern Stanislaus County, which would be cumulatively considerable and is therefore a significant impact under CEQA. The cumulative loss of farmland is an impact of regional and statewide scope. See the discussion of Impact B.3 under “Agricultural Resources.” Mitigation Measure L.26. Same as Mitigation Measure B.3. It is possible that the City Council could find that the project’s contribution to the cumulative loss of prime farmland in Stanislaus County could be partially mitigated through the creation and implementation of a farmland mitigation program. Compliance with any adopted farmland mitigation program would be a condition precedent to the issuance of building permits for the project but would not fully mitigate the cumulative loss of Prime Farmland resulting from the project to less than significant levels. Therefore, the cumulative loss of Prime Farmland would remain a significant, irreversible and unavoidable impact of the project. Cumulative Impacts: Air Quality Impact L.27. The wastewater treatment facilities would cause a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley is designated as nonattainment. (Significant and Unavoidable) On-going population and employment growth in the San Joaquin Valley, when combined with the operation of the additional wastewater treatment facilities would cumulatively increase regional emissions of ROG, NOx, and PM10. Construction phase emissions would be short-term. Even with full mitigation (as described in Section IV.E), the net increase of construction-related emissions would be cumulatively considerable according to the City of Modesto’s significance criterion for construction emissions resulting in a net increase of PM10 or ozone precursors. It ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.57a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 should be noted that compliance with the District’s suggested construction-related mitigation measures is considered by the District to be sufficient mitigation for construction-related emissions. The operational phase of the tertiary treatment facilities would contribute to the regional violations of the ozone and PM10 standards (as described in Impact L.7 above). Because ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.L.58 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 all sources in the region also contribute to these impacts, any individual project impact would also be cumulatively considerable, and the project’s cumulative impacts to the region’s ability to attain the ozone and PM10 standards would be significant. Mitigation Measure L.27 See mitigation measures listed under Impact E.2. With implementation of these measures, significant cumulative impacts would be reduced, but not to less-than-significant levels. Cumulative Impacts: Biological Resources Impact L.28. Cumulative Loss of Swainson’s Hawk and Burrowing Owl Habitat. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Loss of nesting and foraging habitat due to agricultural and urban expansion has greatly reduced the breeding range and abundance of Swainson’s Hawks and Burrowing Owls in California. Modesto, as the largest city in Stanislaus County, is expected, and planned, to accommodate a substantial share of the County’s projected population growth. Development in the Modesto area under the Urban Area General Plan would convert approximately 26,100 acres of agricultural land identified by the California Department of Conservation as either Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or farmland of state or local importance. Considering agricultural conversion in the Modesto area, conversion of suitable Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat and occupied Burrowing Owl habitat at the Secondary Plant would result in significant cumulative impacts to Swainson’s Hawks and Burrowing Owls. Mitigation measures described above (under Impacts L.15 and L.16) would reduce these cumulative impacts to less-than-significant levels. Mitigation Measure L.28 See mitigation measures listed under Impacts L.15 and L.16. With implementation of these measures, significant cumulative impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 M. WATER SUPPLY This section discusses existing and future water supplies for the project site in relation to overall water supplies for the City of Modesto and the area served by the City water agency, and assesses water demand resulting from the proposed development project. The section summarizes the information provided in the Water Supply Assessment prepared by the City of Modesto for the Tivoli Project, adopted by the City Council on July 5, 2006.1 Information on water supply and demand from the Modesto 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) prepared and adopted by the City of Modesto and the Modesto Irrigation District in 2000 was also used in preparing this section. An update to the UWMP is in progress and expected to be approved in 2006.2 The Water Supply Assessment for the project is reproduced in Appendix E to this EIR. Further discussion of water supply impacts is presented in the near-term wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING WATER RESOURCES IN THE MODESTO AREA The City of Modesto Municipal Water System serves all of the City of Modesto, some contiguous unincorporated areas (notably Salida, Empire, the Beard industrial area and County islands), a northern area of the City or Ceres, the non-contiguous communities of Grayson, Del Rio and Hickman, the City of Waterford, and some small areas within the City of Turlock. North of the Tuolumne River, both groundwater and surface water supplies are used to serve the City of Modesto water service area, which includes some contiguous unincorporated areas. South of the Tuolumne River, the City of Modesto water service area is served by groundwater only. All of the non-contiguous water service areas are served by groundwater only. Surface water is provided by the Modesto Irrigation District through a joint Treatment and Delivery Agreement signed in 1992. The project site is currently outside the City’s water service area but is within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and General Plan Boundary. The City plans to annex the project site and become the project’s water provider. The Modesto Irrigation District (MID) serves about 160 square miles within Stanislaus County, about 60 percent of which is under irrigation. The MID water service area is generally located between the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers, primarily east of the San Joaquin River. MID 1 City of Modesto, Water Supply Assessment Prepared for Tivoli Project, Final Draft, June 2006 (hereinafter cited as “WSA”). 2 WSA, p. 2. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 provides both surface water and groundwater for agricultural use throughout its service area. The City of Modesto is MID’s only domestic water customer. The City of Modesto purchases approximately 33,602 acre feet per year of treated surface water from MID. Groundwater Resources In 2005, the City of Modesto obtained approximately 54 percent of its potable water from City owned and operated wells. The City overlies and draws water from two groundwater sub-basins: the Tuolumne River Groundwater Sub-basin, also known as the Modesto Sub-basin, serving the area north of the Tuolumne River, and from the Turlock Groundwater Sub-basin, serving the area south of the Tuolumne River. The City’s use of groundwater from the Tuolumne River Sub-basin is up to 45,625 acre-feet3 per year (af/yr) and from the Turlock Sub-basin is up to 4,587 af/yr. The City of Modesto has both overlying and appropriative rights to water in both groundwater sub-basins.4 The Tuolumne River Groundwater Sub-basin and the Turlock Groundwater Sub- basin are “unadjudicated” groundwater basins, meaning that there is no appointed “water master” to resolve groundwater pumping issues and there are no established limits on the amounts of groundwater that can be extracted by individuals or agencies. Modesto and the other agencies within the Tuolumne River Groundwater Sub-basin formed the Stanislaus & Tuolumne Rivers’ Groundwater Basin Association (Groundwater Association). In conjunction with the Groundwater Association, the MID and the Turlock Irrigation District (TID) have prepared Groundwater Management Plans for the Tuolumne River and Turlock sub-basins, respectively. The City has adopted the management plan for the Tuolumne River Groundwater Sub-basin and is in the process of adopting the management plan for the Turlock Groundwater Sub-basin to constitute the Modesto Groundwater Management Plan. The City is implementing elements of the Groundwater Management Plans, including monitoring groundwater levels and implementing conjunctive use. The total sustainable yield for the Tuolumne River Sub-basin is estimated to be about 160,000 af/yr.5 3 An acre-foot is the amount of water necessary to cover an acre of land (about 43,560 sq. ft.) with one foot of water, or about 325,872 gallons. 4 Overlying water rights are rights to use groundwater on the property that overlies the water (“on-tract” use). Appropriative water rights are uses of groundwater away from the property from which it was pumped. Where an aquifer is overdrafted, courts can allocate water among overlying users and will allocate to overlying users before appropriative users; in these circumstances remaining water would be allocated among appropriative users on a seniority basis. Additional principles apply when an appropriative user has been withdrawing non-surplus water for more than five years. 5 WSA, p. 23. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The City pumped an average of about 45,500 af/yr of groundwater from the Tuolumne River Sub- basin6 and up to 4,587 af/yr from the Turlock Sub-basin during the 2000-2005 time frame. Groundwater levels were declining in the Tuolumne River Sub-basin before 1995, as use exceeded annual recharge. Average annual groundwater extraction between 1986 and 1990 was 56,800 af/yr, above the current estimated sustainable yield of 45,625 af/yr for the City of Modesto from the Tuolumne River Sub-basin.7 The water levels declined nearly 15 feet between 1970 and 2000 according to the California Department of Water Resources.8 At the lowest point during this 30-year period, water levels were nearly 20 feet below the 1970 level. Immediately after the completion of the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant in 1995, the City of Modesto reduced groundwater pumping to about half the 1994 rate of 68,620 af/yr. Water levels rose about five feet between 1996 and 2000, indicating that more recharge to the basin than pumping and other outflows from the basin has occurred during this time period. Moreover, the period of recovery from 1996 to 2000 consisted of three wet years in a row followed by two above-normal rainfall years. The City considers groundwater extraction operations to be consistent with a non-overdraft condition, as groundwater levels rose during the 1996-2000 period after use of treated surface water was initiated. In addition, continued use of treated surface water, and continued planned urbanization of agricultural lands, reducing the amount of groundwater used for irrigation, combine to increase the percentage of the sustainable yield available to the City. The amount of groundwater extraction that results in a non-overdraft condition is considered a Sustainable Yield. The City’s current groundwater extraction rate of 45,625 af/yr from the Tuolumne River Sub- basin is currently considered the Sustainable Yield.9 The annual amount of groundwater from this sub-basin considered to be a sustainable yield for the City’s use has not increased over time to account for past conversions of agricultural uses to urban uses. However, it is expected to increase as more agricultural land is annexed into the City for urban uses. Existing residential uses on the project site are served by groundwater wells unrelated to the City of Modesto Water Service System, except for residences along Jeffrey Dr., Carl Way, Lydia Lane, and the commercial center at the corner of Oakdale and Sylvan. These are within the Modesto water service area and recent information indicates these specific parcels are using City water service. The amounts of groundwater used on the remainder of the site have not been quantified, but are assumed to be small in relation to the available water supply. 6 WSA, pp. 16-17, showing groundwater extractions from the Tuolumne River Sub-basin over the six-year period. 7 WSA, p. 16. 8 California Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Individual Basin Description: Modesto Sub-basin, October 2003, cited in City of Modesto, Water Supply Assessment prepared for Tivoli Project, Final Draft, June 2006, pp. 14-15. 9 WSA, p. 8. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The City monitors water quality at each wellhead for dissolved solids, hardness, major ions, organic compounds and nitrates; when water fails to meet state and federal standards, a well is taken out of service. Wellhead treatment using granular activated carbon is used at some wells to remove organic compounds from the water before it enters the distribution system.10 Chlorination takes place within the distribution system. Fourteen of the City’s 118 wells are currently out of service, primarily because of the presence of contaminants or minerals at levels that exceed drinking water standards.11 These out-of-service wells are located throughout the system, with the majority located in the Tuolumne River Groundwater Sub-basin, in the west and north-central parts of the City’s service area. Although six wells have been remediated and returned to service as of 2005, the 14 remaining out of service wells are causing a temporary shortage of localized water supply in the north-central and northwestern parts of the City. Because the water system has interconnected components, water from other sources in the City, including wells in the vicinity of the Tivoli Specific Plan area, temporarily make up for the lost supply capacity in the north-central and west areas. This is only an interim solution, however, as it can potentially reduce water pressures to minimal levels during maximum daily and peak hour demands. It is anticipated that the City could continue to lose well production at a rate of approximately 2.3 wells per year for the foreseeable future due to contaminant issues. Total lost well production since 1998 represents approximately 15 percent of the City’s total well water production. The City is currently developing six new groundwater wells to meet the City’s supply needs,12 and is also developing an aggressive plan to rehabilitate existing wells previously lost to contaminant issues as well as existing wells that in the future may experience contaminant issues. Surface Water Resources Surface water sources in the Modesto area are the Stanislaus River, north of the City at the Stanislaus County boundary; the Tuolumne River that flows through the southern part of the City; the Modesto Reservoir, located about 15 miles east of Modesto; and the Don Pedro Reservoir in the Sierra Nevada foothills near La Grange. Both reservoirs receive water from the Tuolumne River and are part of the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) surface water facilities. MID irrigation canals are found throughout the City and eastern and central Stanislaus County; they are served by a combination of surface water from the Tuolumne River and groundwater. Apart from a man-made seasonal wetland area, there is no surface water on the project site. 10 City of Modesto and Modesto Irrigation District, Modesto 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, 2000, cited in Final Environmental Impact Report, Kaiser Modesto Medical Center / Cornerstone Business Park Project, State Clearinghouse No. [PHONE REDACTED], certified August 10, 2004. 11 WSA, p. 8. 12 WSA, p. 7. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The source of surface water for Modesto is MID’s permitted water from the Tuolumne River. The City and MID joined together in 1992, along with the then-existing Del Este Water Company, to provide domestic water service using MID’s surface water supply, and to construct and operate the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant.13 The located about 17 miles east of Modesto, near the Modesto Reservoir, was completed in January 1995. It currently has a capacity to treat 30 million gallons per day (MGD), or approximately 33,602 acre-feet of water on an annualized basis, and has the “capacity” to treat over 36 mgd for a short period of time with advanced notice and deliver such short-term amounts per the TDA. The provides treatment designed to meet state and federal drinking water standards. The treatment process includes ozonation, coagulation/flocculation, sedimentation, filtration and carbonate stabilization for corrosion control. Water is delivered to the Terminal Reservoir and Pump Station via a pipeline. This treated surface water enters the City’s water distribution system at this pump station. BASELINE WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND The combined groundwater and surface water supply (also called “conjunctive use”) currently available to serve the Modesto Water System is about 83,814 acre-feet, based on a groundwater supply from the Tuolumne River Groundwater Sub-basin of about 45,625 acre feet and from the Turlock Groundwater Sub-basin of 4,587 acre-feet, plus the MID surface water supply for domestic use of 33,602 acre-feet.14 The surface and groundwater supplies are disinfected prior to blending in the water distribution system. Water users in the Modesto Water System service area consumed approximately 77,800 acre-feet of water for residential and non-residential uses in 2000.15 Groundwater plus surface water supplies provide 83,814 acre-feet annually, thus supplying more than the amount estimated to have been used in 2000.16 The Modesto Reservoir provides storage for about 83 percent of the 30 mgd treated in the annually. The Don Pedro Reservoir provides approximately 300 percent of the annual demand for irrigation from both MID and the Turlock Irrigation District, thus providing protection for the domestic supply of surface water from MID. A key reason that severe water shortages have not materialized recently is the ongoing water conservation program implemented in the Modesto water service area over 10 years ago. Modesto adopted a Water Conservation Program in 1990 that includes an education program for 13 The City of Modesto acquired the Del Este Water Company in July 1995. 14 WSA, Table 2, p. 6. 15 WSA, Table 6.1 (Revised), p. 18. 16 WSA, Table 4.2 (Updated), p. 10. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 water users, watering restrictions, and prohibition of water waste. The Modesto 2000 Urban Water Management Plan summarizes 14 Best Management Practices in the Water Conservation Program: BMP 1 – Water Survey Programs for Single- and Multi-Family Residential Customers BMP 2 – Residential Plumbing Retrofit BMP 3 – System Water Audits, Leak Detection and Repair BMP 4 – Metering with Commodity Rates for all New Connections BMP 5 – Large Landscape Conservation Programs and Incentives BMP 6 – High Efficiency Washing Machine Rebate (under investigation) BMP 7 – Public Information Programs BMP 8 – School Education Program BMP 9 – Conservation Programs for Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Accounts BMP 10 – Wholesale Agency Assistance Programs BMP 11 – Conservation Pricing BMP 12 – Conservation Coordinator BMP 13 – Water Waste Prohibition BMP 14 – Residential Ultra Low Flow Toilet Replacement Program (incentives for replacement have not been adopted) The City has not quantified the water savings that could be attributed to these practices. An aggressive water conservation program was instituted in May 2003. Implementation resulted in peak summer water demand in 2003 remaining at 2002 levels, indicating that the conservation program achieved measurable savings. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The following state and local laws, programs and policies affect water supply in the Modesto area. Urban Water Management Plan The Modesto City Council adopted an Urban Water Management Plan in September 2000 pursuant to the California Urban Water Management Planning Act.17 An update to the UWMP is expected to be approved in 2006. The UWMP, prepared jointly by the City of Modesto and the Modesto Irrigation District, provides a planning tool for both agencies to develop and deliver domestic water supplies to the Modesto water supply service area. The UWMP evaluates past, present, and projected future demand and supply in five-year increments through 2025. The projected future demand is based on the Stanislaus Council of Governments population growth projections for the City of Modesto and surrounding areas served by the Modesto water system. Growth in the Tivoli Specific Plan area is included in the water demand estimate. The UWMP 17 California Water Code Sections 10610-10657. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 recommends that Phase Two of the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant be constructed, to provide an additional approximately 33,600 af/yr of water. Phase Two of the Water Treatment Plant is planned to increase the treated surface water supply to about 67,200 af/yr by 2009. The City of Modesto has participated in the regional groundwater basin association that developed Groundwater Management Plans for the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin and the Turlock Groundwater Basin. The City has adopted the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Management Plan and is finalizing the Turlock Groundwater Management Plan. The City is implementing elements in the plans, including monitoring groundwater levels and the conjunctive use of surface water. Water Supply Assessment The City of Modesto prepared a Water Supply Assessment for the Tivoli Project pursuant to Sections 10910 to 10915 of the California Water Code, often referred to as “SB 610” based on substantial modifications to these sections of the Water Code in 2001. The Modesto City Council adopted the WSA on July 5, 2006. A copy of the WSA is provided in Appendix E to this EIR. California State Drinking Water Quality Regulations The California Department of Health Services has established standards for drinking water supplied by public water systems. The state standards must meet or exceed federal drinking water standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Concentrations of specified constituents, such as minerals, total dissolved solids, and bacteriological contaminants, are limited to specified maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Public water suppliers must obtain a permit from the Department of Health Services to provide domestic water supplies (water provided for drinking and other non-agricultural or industrial uses). The City has the required permits and meets required MCLs. City of Modesto The City of Modesto’s Urban Area General Plan includes the following polices related to water supplies: Policy V-C.2.a: During review of all proposed development, the City shall require, as a condition of approval, that all developments reduce their potable water demand. The City should refer to Table 5-1 in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for potential techniques to reduce potable water demand. Policy V-C.2.b: The City of Modesto will encourage the optimum beneficial use of water resources within the City. The City shall strive to maintain an adequate supply of high quality water for urban uses. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Policy V-C.2.c: The City of Modesto will strive to stabilize groundwater levels and eliminate groundwater overdraft, as part of a conjunctive groundwater-surface water management program. The City shall view regional water resources, such as groundwater, surface water and recycled wastewater, as an integrated hydrologic system when developing water management programs. Policy V-C.2.d: The City of Modesto will be the sole provider of municipal and industrial water services to the area within the City's Sphere of Influence. The City will cooperate with the overlying agricultural water providers, MID and TID, and with adjacent municipal and industrial providers for the mutually beneficial management of the limited water resources. The City will also take into consideration its public trust duty with regard to environmental uses of water resources. Policy V-C.2.e: Water facilities will be constructed, operated, maintained and replaced in a manner that will provide the best possible service to the public, given the financial abilities and constraints of the City and of the private sector alike. Policy V-C.2.f: The City will continue to establish guidelines, policies and programs to implement water conservation to the maximum extent feasible. The City shall strive to maximize the utilization of water resources when developing and implementing its Economic Development Strategy. Policy V-C.2.g: The City supports the local management of groundwater resources, rather than state regulation or adjudication. The City will adopt a Groundwater Management Plan in accordance with AB 3030, and in cooperation with the adjacent and overlying water providers within the groundwater basins the City occupies. Policy V-C.3.b: The City of Modesto shall coordinate land development projects with the expansion of water treatment and supply facilities. In addition, the City has adopted the Tuolumne and Stanislaus Rivers’ Groundwater Basin Management Plan and is in the process of completing the Turlock Groundwater Basin Management Plan in cooperation with other stakeholder agencies. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Supplying the project site with water would have a significant environmental impact if the project would: Substantially deplete (overdraft) groundwater supplies by causing drawdown exceeding the capacity for recharge; Require the construction of new water supply facilities that themselves could cause significant impacts; or Result in or contribute to demand on the water supply system exceeding water supply. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS Future Water Demand The UWMP estimated that water use in the water service area in 2000 would be about 77,800 af/yr. The UWMP assumed increases in water demand every five years through 2025, when demand was estimated to be about 158,800 af/yr. These estimates were based on population growth estimates for the relevant portions of Stanislaus County prepared by the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG). The WSA for the proposed project revised the estimated future water demand based on more recent projections of population growth presented in the Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan, certified in March 2003. The revised demand in 2025 is projected to be 136,400 af/yr.18 Applying a unit water demand factor derived in the UWMP from the total water demand throughout the water service area in 2025 to the proposed 480-acre Tivoli development19 results in a future baseline demand for water on the project site of about 1.46 million gallons per day (mgd) or 1,635 af/yr. This reflects the UWMP water use estimates that are based on the City- wide mix of land uses as forecast in 2000. Total average annual water demand for the Tivoli Project at buildout in about 2017 is estimated at 1.23 mgd or 1,378 af/yr.20 The estimated average annual water demand is lower than that projected by the UWMP method because the average residential density of the Tivoli Project is higher than the average residential density for the entire Modesto City water service area, resulting in less average water use per dwelling from reduced per-lot landscaping demands. The City plans to base future water usage charges on water metering instead of using a flat rate, which would further reduce water usage per dwelling unit, although this reduction has not been taken into account in water demand calculations for the project. Demand during droughts generally increases due to the lack of rainfall for landscape irrigation; therefore, the UWMP assumed that future demand during drought conditions will remain constant, as a balance between increased irrigation demand and reduced consumption in response to increased conservation through implementation of the City’s water conservation program. 18 WSA, p. 18. 19 The Tivoli Specific Plan area contains a total of 480 gross acres. This includes about 26 acres located within the future perimeter arterial streets rights-of-way, measured to the centerline of the streets. For the purposes of discussion in the Draft EIR, the net acreage total of 454 acres is used, except in this water supply analysis. 20 WSA, Table 5, p. 19. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The WSA concludes that the Tivoli Project was accounted for in the UWMP,21 and that the water demand from the Project would be less than was assumed in the UWMP for the project site. Future Water Supply The Tivoli Specific Plan area is near existing water infrastructure including wells, the distribution system, and transmission system piping. This proximity to City water services is consistent with the City’s General Plan policy statement that “Urban growth should be directed, as long as economically feasible, to areas currently served with City services.” The City of Modesto and MID have a Treatment and Development Agreement (TDA) and are working together on a Phase Two expansion of the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant. Under the TDA, MID will deliver a total of 67,200 af/yr to Modesto upon completion and operation of the Phase Two treatment plant facilities expansion. This expansion would supply an additional approximately 33,600 af/yr from surface water supplies, and would assist the City of Modesto to meet its future water demand. The expansion is expected to be completed by about 2009.22 In addition to the expanded facilities providing an additional 33,600 af/yr of surface water, the City expects available groundwater supplies to increase as agricultural uses are converted to urban uses. This would occur as agricultural activities no longer use underlying groundwater for irrigation, making the groundwater available for domestic use and increasing the sustainable yield from groundwater sources. It is possible to quantify the amount of increase in available groundwater that could result from conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, but the City of Modesto has not yet established this ratio. The City is planning to establish an agricultural-to-urban use ratio for the sub-basin in future UWMP updates. The WSA explains that the total Modesto groundwater subbasin yield, serving both domestic and agricultural uses, is not expected to change, and “the sustainable yield available to the City increases with urbanization over time” as agricultural uses are replaced with urban uses.23 The existing water supply includes both groundwater and surface water sources. The City’s actual water demand in 2005 was 82,960 af. 24 This demand was met by the existing water supply 21 WSA, p. 25 22 WSA, p. 16. The City is also developing six new wells to meet future water supply needs, and is carrying out remediation for Well 50, currently out of service. These activities are expected to help offset the lost capacity from the 14 wells that are out of service due to poor water quality; they would not increase the total overall available groundwater supply. 23 WSA, p. 8. 24 Jim Alves, City of Modesto Public Works Department, telephone conversation with Turnstone Consulting, August 3, 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 of about 83,814 af/yr.25 At present, the City has sufficient supply of groundwater and surface water to supply estimated growth over a 20-year time frame, but does not have a sufficient supply to serve future growth within its service area after 2027.26 In order to supply this future growth, the City is reviewing various alternatives for developing and identifying additional sources of water supply, as discussed below.27 Development of a Phase Three Expansion of the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plan. A Phase Three expansion is based on the future conversion of agricultural land to urban uses which would allow for a corresponding redistribution of MID’s existing surface water rights. The City has engaged in preliminary discussion with MID regarding development of Phase Three and anticipates that any future phase would be developed to meet the need for additional water supply prior to 2027. Based on the estimated physical water delivery limit of the transmission pipe facilities between the and the City, it is estimated that Phase Three could provide the City with an additional 33,600 af/yr of supply. Development of a Water Treatment Plant in Conjunction with Turlock Irrigation District The proposed TID WTP is based on the current and future conversion of agricultural land to urban uses which allows for a corresponding redistribution of TID’s existing surface water rights. The development of a new WTP with TID would provide the City with an estimated additional 13,440 af/yr of surface water. Water provided by this WTP would serve South Modesto (south of the Tuolumne River). Currently, water is supplied in South Modesto from wells in the Modesto Basin (north of the Tuolumne River). Reduced demands on groundwater supplied north of the river to provide water in South Modesto could make the additional groundwater available for demand north of the river. Development and Use of Recycled Water The City has performed a feasibility study regarding the development of a recycled water system to offset potable demand. Tier I of this project has the potential to provide an additional 6,720 to 11,200 af/yr of water by applying recycled water for irrigation at existing golf courses, parks, schools, and industrial uses, and in future Comprehensive Planning Districts. Much of this additional supply, however, will not affect potable water supply needs because most of the golf course and parks’ irrigation is currently supplied by non-potable sources. The City anticipates that the Tier I system, if found to be economically feasible, could be developed and operational within 5 to 10 years. 25 WSA, Table 4.2, p. 10. 26 WSA, p. 25. 27 WSA, pp. 25-28. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Update of the City’s Urban Water Management Plan In 2005, the City initiated a review and update of its 2000 Urban Water Management Plan and expects to adopt the update in 2006. The update will include revised population projections and more detailed demand projections based on land use. The revisions will also include updates to the groundwater basin information from the Groundwater Management Plan, including identification of increased municipal sustainable yield that could be made possible by future conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. Such conversions allow for a corresponding reallocation of both surface and groundwater from agricultural to urban use. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Program The City does not anticipate the need for the entire 67,204 af/yr of surface water supply that will become available in 2009 from the until 2018. The City is evaluating the feasibility of purchasing and distributing the 67,204 af/yr of MID surface water when it becomes available in 2009, and reducing its groundwater extraction by that amount. The amount of groundwater “stored” would be greatest in 2009 and would decrease each year until 2018, at which time the City anticipates the need for the full output of the and the sustainable yield of the groundwater reservoir. Reduced pumping of groundwater between 2009 and 2018 could result in an increase in the groundwater level through in-lieu storage. After 2018, the City could begin to “recover” the stored groundwater. The feasibility of an ASR program in South Modesto, using TID surface water could also be studied because the City does not anticipate the need for the 12,880 af/yr from the TID WTP in the early years. Metering The City has begun requiring installation of water meters with all new development and is currently retrofitting existing water service customers with meters (approximately 5,000 dwelling units per year). The City has initiated billing residential customers based on metered usage, in a phased approach. The City anticipates that conversion to metered-use billing will result in water use reductions of approximately five to ten percent. The City also expects that metering will permit detection and elimination of significant water leaks. Conjunctive Use Water Supply Management Program The City is implementing a water supply management strategy that maximizes the use of available surface water supplies and uses groundwater supplies for peaking needs and emergency supplies. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table IV.M.1, Summary of City of Modesto Projected Water Supply and Demand, shows the projected surplus (deficit) for years 2010, 2015, 2020 (by which time buildout of the Tivoli Specific Plan would have occurred), and General Plan buildout in 2025. The WSA analysis is to the year 2030. The water supply values shown reflect the availability of water supplies from the Phase Three expansion of the and the completion of the TID WTP. There is no surplus supply available until the additional supply from the planned expansion of the surface water treatment plant becomes available in 2009. With Phase Two of the in place, the City would have a total water supply in 2010 of about 117,416 af/yr.28 Thereafter, the City would have an adequate water supply for buildout of the General Plan, including the Tivoli Specific Table IV.M.1: Summary of City of Modesto Projected Water Supply and Demand (acre-feet per year) Year Supply1, 2 Demand3 Surplus(Deficit) 2005 Normal 83,814 82,960 854 Drought Year 1 81,414 82,960 (1,546) Drought Year 2 79,014 82,960 (3,946) Drought Year 3 76,614 82,960 (6,346) 2010 Normal 117,4164 97,100 20,316 Drought Year 1 112,616 97,100 15,516 Drought Year 2 107,816 97,100 10,716 Drought Year 3 103,015 97,100 5,915 2015 Normal 130,8565 110,200 20,656 Drought Year 1 125,096 110,200 14,896 Drought Year 2 119,336 110,200 9,136 Drought Year 3 113,575 110,200 3,375 2020 Normal 164,4586 123,300 41,158 Drought Year 1 156,298 123,300 32,998 Drought Year 2 148,137 123,300 24,837 Drought Year 3 139,977 123,300 16,677 2030 Normal 164,458 136,400 28,058 Drought Year 1 156,298 136,400 19,898 Drought Year 2 148,137 136,400 11,737 Drought Year 3 139,977 136,400 3,577 Notes: 1 Source: Water Supply Assessment, Table 4.2 (Updated), p. 10, and Modesto Public Works. 2 Water supply is increased by surface water treatment projects given in following notes. Groundwater use remains constant throughout the period at 45,625 af/yr. 3 Source: Water Supply Assessment, Table 6.1 (Revised), p. 18. WSA p. 22 explains that the UWMP assumes demand to remain constant during drought years. 4 Assumes that 33,602 af/yr becomes available in 2009 from Phase Two expansion of the 5 Assumes that 13,440 af/yr becomes available from TID by 2015 6 Assumes that 33,602 becomes available from Phase Three expansion of by 2020. 28 WSA, Table 4.2, p. 10. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Plan. Demand figures for drought years shown in Table IV.M.1 assume that conservation efforts identified in the City’s Conservation Policy have not been implemented; therefore, the surpluses in those years may be higher than shown in the table. PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION Impact M.1. Implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan could increase the demand for potable water. (Less than Significant) The total average annual water demand for the proposed Tivoli Project would be about 1.23 mgd or about 1,378 af/yr. As discussed on pp. IV.M.9-IV.M.10, this is less than the amount assumed in the UWMP for several reasons. As discussed under “Future Water Demand,” above, the WSA determined that the average residential density of the Tivoli project is higher than the average City residential density, resulting in less average water use per dwelling unit due to smaller per-lot landscaping demands. Population growth in the City of Modesto has been slower than originally assumed in the UWMP. Finally, the UWMP did not assume that metering of water use would be implemented. The City’s current plan to base future water usages charges on water metering instead of using a flat rate would reduce water usage per dwelling unit. Therefore, the WSA found that actual water demand at full buildout of the Tivoli Specific Plan would be lower than assumed in the UWMP, and more water would be available in early years to serve the proposed project site. Based on this analysis, the WSA determined that, while implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan would increase the demand for potable water, there would be sufficient supply to serve the project site, and the impact of the increased water demand for implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. Impact M.2. Demand from the project would cause low water pressure problems within the City’s water system. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The City’s water system has experienced occasional localized water pressure reliability problems, particularly during peak demand periods and maximum-day conditions. This is primarily caused by the loss of several wells (six were returned to service in 2005) over the past several years with 14 wells currently remaining out-of-service and also to the increased demand from new growth. The WSA states that there are existing water pressure deficiencies in the City’s delivery system indicating the inability of the existing system to adequately service new growth in the Tivoli area. Therefore, a new water demand from the Tivoli Specific Plan will further impact the existing system’s ability to serve this new area and continue to maintain the level of service to existing customers. The Tivoli Water Capacity Study shows that, hydraulically, unless new wells are ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.15 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 brought into production within and around the Tivoli area, water pressure could be reduced to minimal levels during peak hour demand periods and during a theoretical maximum-day-plus- fire-flow event. Mitigation Measure M.2 In order to maintain adequate water pressure in the City’s delivery system, it would be necessary to install two new wells that would have a combined capability to meet or exceed the project’s peak-hour demand of 2,160 gallons per minute and maximum-day demand of approximately 6.57 af/day. One well must be fully developed and operational by the time of the initial project development. The second well must be provided and operational during the second phase of development or as determined by the City of Modesto. One or both of these wells could be located within the Tivoli Specific Plan area; however, it may be necessary to reduce the extent of residential or commercial development in order to accommodate the wells, pumps, distribution system, and groundwater treatment facilities. One of the wells may instead be installed east of the project area as is currently expected with the Grogan Well site. Installation and development of the wells would not create any new impacts within the Tivoli Specific Plan area; installation east of the project area would involve typical construction impacts such as temporary, localized noise and dust production. The proposed project would use about 1,378 af/yr of water at buildout. This demand would be provided from both groundwater and surface water supplies, based on the City’s conjunctive use practice. The new wells that are required to maintain adequate water pressure during the early years of project development would continue in use as part of the water supply system, and would provide for peak-demand needs and emergency supplies as part of the integrated water supply system. The City would not increase the total annual average groundwater extraction from the Tuolumne River Sub-basin in order to provide water for development under the Tivoli Specific Plan.29 The sustainable yield of the Tuolumne River Sub-basin is not precisely known; however, the City has implemented a practice of frequently monitoring groundwater levels in order to prevent groundwater overdraft. The City’s groundwater extraction amount of 45,625 af/yr from the Tuolumne River Sub-basin is currently considered the sustainable yield. Further, the City expects that groundwater supplies will increase as agricultural uses are converted to urban uses. This would occur as agricultural activities no longer use groundwater for irrigation, making the groundwater available for domestic use and increasing the sustainable 29 WSA, Table 4.2 (Updated), p. 10. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.16 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 yield from groundwater sources. Even so, the City does not anticipate increased groundwater extraction beyond the sustainable yield. The new wells that are necessary for implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan would not increase the City’s rate or amount of groundwater extraction with the City’s planned conjunctive use strategy, and would not result in overdraft conditions in the Tuolumne River Groundwater Sub-basin. Furthermore, conversion of agricultural land to urban use would allow for increases as the sustainable yield is adjusted for urban growth. Therefore, the impact of installing and operating the new wells would be less than significant. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure M.2, this impact would be less than significant. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impact M.3. Development of the proposed project could contribute to cumulative demand for potable water in the Modesto Water Service Area. (Less than Significant) The City is currently updating the UWMP, using updated population projections and land-use- based demand projections to better represent demand from new development. The update is also expected to use new groundwater basin information that has been developed in the regional groundwater management plans, including increased domestic sustainable yield potential due to conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. The WSA for the Tivoli Specific Plan includes projections of available water supplies under single and multiple year drought conditions in Table 4.2 (Updated),30 and provides projections of growth in demand for water through 2030.31 The WSA analysis accounts for additional growth in demand, but does not account for additional groundwater supply that may be available as agricultural land is converted to urban uses, and therefore is conservative. The UWMP anticipates that the City will have adequate water supply until 2020 from existing surface and groundwater sources, supplemented by implementation of water conservation measures including water use metering, and development of a new water treatment plant with the Turlock Irrigation District. At present, the City has identified a sufficient water supply to serve future growth within its service area for the 20-year period through 2027. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation necessary. 30 WSA, Table 4.2 (Updated), p. 10. 31 WSA, Table 6.1 (Revised), p. 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation M. Water Supply Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.M.17 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact M.4. Development of the proposed project would not contribute substantially to the potential for regional cumulative demand to result in overdraft of groundwater supplies. (Less than Significant) Future demand from development projected to occur in the Modesto Water Service Area would contribute to regional demand for water supplies from the adjacent areas of Stanislaus County that are experiencing population and employment growth. To the extent that development in adjacent areas uses groundwater from the Stanislaus and Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin, this nearby development could contribute to a potential overdraft condition in the future and could result in a cumulative impact in the region. The WSA for the Tivoli Specific Plan does not assume any increase in groundwater supply in estimating total water supplies available in the future, and therefore provides a conservative analysis of available water. As agricultural land is converted to urban uses in the future, the amount of groundwater available for municipal use would be expected to increase; the magnitude of the increase has not been calculated for the Tuolumne River Sub-basin and therefore any resulting increase in groundwater supply has not been factored into the analysis. Water demand from the proposed project would not result in groundwater use exceeding Modesto’s sustainable yield amount. Therefore, the project would not contribute substantially to potential cumulative regional impacts on groundwater levels. Mitigation Measures. No mitigation necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 N. POPULATION AND HOUSING The Population and Housing section discusses existing population, housing, and employment- related conditions and trends in and around the project area, and evaluates the Tivoli Specific Plan’s potential impacts on them. This section is based on available site information; a review of the City of Modesto’s Urban Area General Plan; Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan (hereinafter referred to as “Final MEIR”); the City of Modesto 2003-2008 Housing Element; the Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) Regional Housing Needs Assessment1; information gathered from the California Department of Finance; and the 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census data. Further discussion of population and housing impacts is presented in the near-term wastewater analysis in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems. SETTING As the largest city in the County, Modesto serves as Stanislaus County’s housing and employment center. Surrounded by small cities and farmland, Modesto is located approximately 90 miles east of San Francisco, 80 miles south of Sacramento, and 95 miles northwest of Fresno. According to 2000 U.S. Census information, Stanislaus County’s population was approximately 447,000 and Modesto’s was about 189,000. As of January 1, 2005, the California Department of Finance estimated Stanislaus County’s population to be about 504,482 and Modesto’s to be about 207,634.2 According to StanCOG, the region is expected to grow significantly in the future, and Modesto is expected to be one of the leaders in both population and employment growth. The City of Modesto 2003-2008 Housing Element states that “growth projections recently adopted by StanCOG are higher for Modesto (5.32 percent annually) than for the County (3.49 percent) and are much higher than for the unincorporated portions of the County (0.35 percent).”3 It is further stated in the Housing Element that: “Population growth in Modesto is expected to increase dramatically over the next 20 years as compared to the last 20 years. Population growth in Modesto is also anticipated to be relatively greater than in surrounding communities. Between 1950 and 1990, Modesto’s share of the County population increased from 14 to 45 percent. As of 2000, Modesto’s population was approximately 42 percent of the County total and according to StanCOG is expected to increase to more than 1 StanCOG adopted a Regional Housing Needs Assessment for Stanislaus County in October 2002 and an Addendum in July 2003. 2 State of California, Department of Finance, E-1 City / County Population Estimates, with Annual Percent Change, January 1, 2004 and 2005, Sacramento, California, May 2005. 3 City of Modesto, City of Modesto 2003-2008 Housing Element, p. 2-8, April 27, 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 53 percent of the County total by 2025. Overall, Modesto is projected by StanCOG to account for more than 66 percent of the County population growth between 2000 and 2025. However, the City’s Final MEIR projects a more realistic outlook of growth given the City’s infrastructure and resource constraints and the desire to maintain and enhance the quality of life for the community. According to the MEIR, population in Modesto may reach 400,000 by 2025, as compared to StanCOG’s projection of 418,562 by 2020.”4 According to the traffic model transportation analysis zones (TAZ) file data in Modesto’s Final MEIR, Modesto is projected to have an annual average population growth of 3.12 percent between 2003 and 2025. Therefore, Modesto’s population is projected to be approximately 268,000 by the year 2012 and approximately 400,000 by the year 2025.5 The TAZ file data presented in the Final MEIR includes estimates for population, employment, and housing units. According to this data, by 2025 there would be approximately 400,000 people, 304,000 employees, and 138,000 housing units in the City’s Growth Strategy Areas: the Planned Urbanizing Area (PUA), the Baseline Developed Area (BDA), and the Redevelopment Area (RDA).6 New housing construction is anticipated in the PUA, with infill development taking place within the BDA and the RDA. The City’s employment growth would also be distributed among its different planning areas, with approximately 147,900 jobs in the PUA, 111,380 jobs in the BDA, and 44,640 in the RDA.7 In 1990, there were 132,027 housing units in Stanislaus County, 60,885 of which were in Modesto.8 According to 2000 U.S. Census data, there were 67,278 housing units in Modesto.9 Due to growth in Modesto, a total of 6,393 housing units were constructed in Modesto over this 10-year period, or an average of about 640 housing units per year. As of January 1, 2005, the California Department of Finance identified 167,048 housing units in Stanislaus County, 72,615 of which were in Modesto.10 This growth, over 1,000 units per year during the most recent five-year period (2000-2005), indicates an increase in Modesto’s growth rate compared to the 1990-2000 period. 4 Ibid, p. 2-20. 5 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, Appendix F, Table F-1, Estimated Development Capacity: Population, Employment and Housing Units – 2002 General Plan by Growth Strategy Area, March 2003. 6 Modesto is divided into three geographical planning areas: Baseline Developed Area (BDA), Planned Urbanizing Area (PUA), and Redevelopment Area (RDA). Each of these planning areas has a unique set of City-defined land use/zoning designations. The BDA generally includes areas that are substantially developed with urban uses; the PUA forms Modesto’s outer perimeter; and the RDA generally includes the historic downtown core. 7 These numbers are rounded to the nearest tenth. 8 State of California, Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 Census Counts, Sacramento, California, May 2000. 9 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, Table DP-4 Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000. 10 State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 City / County Population and Housing Estimates, 2005, Revised 2001-2004, with 2000 DRU Benchmark, Sacramento, California, May 2005. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 According to 2000 U.S. Census data, there were 145,146 occupied housing units in Stanislaus County, 65,103 of which were in Modesto.11 The total number of occupied housing units within Modesto has grown from 57,96512 in 1990 to 65,103 in 2000. As of January 1, 2005, there were approximately 160,806 occupied housing units in Stanislaus County, 70,215 of which were in Modesto.13 JOBS / HOUSING BALANCE Regional Outlook The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) identifies housing needs for each region as a response to the growing population and household growth in the state. In Stanislaus County, HCD established a need for 35,239 housing units over the current planning period (January 1, 2001 to July 1, 2008). In contrast, StanCOG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocated only 20,854 units for 2008.14 StanCOG’s regional housing needs is determined by historical employment growth for the unincorporated portions of the County and its nine cities and the housing required to support that growth. StanCOG’s RHNA addressed the existing and future housing needs of residents living and working in Stanislaus County and found that Stanislaus County provides housing for many Bay Area workers. StanCOG stated in its RHNA that “the San Francisco Bay Area has systematically placed a lower priority on providing adequate affordable housing for its workforce, thereby forcing an overly burdensome migration to the San Joaquin Valley.”15 This has resulted in a significant number of people commuting from residences in the San Joaquin Valley to jobs in the San Francisco Bay Area, resulting in a jobs/housing imbalance in Stanislaus County. The HCD- identified regional housing needs would serve to further worsen the current jobs/housing imbalance, from the current ratio 1.18 jobs per household to 1.058 jobs per household.16 11 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000, Table DP-4 Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000. 12 State of California, Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates, 1991-2000, with 1990 Census Counts, Sacramento, California, May 2000. 13 State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 City / County Population and Housing Estimates, 2005, Revised 2001-2004, with 2000 DRU Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2005. 14 Initially, StanCOG’s regional housing needs forecast did not comply with the HCD-mandated total of 35,239 housing units. StanCOG and its member agencies recognized that this would prevent HCD from certifying housing elements from jurisdictions in Stanislaus County. As a result, on July 9, 2003 the StanCOG Policy Board approved a two-part course of action that 1) recognized and reaffirmed the 20,854 additional housing units as an accurate reflection of the region’s true housing needs, and 2) amended the RHNA which adopted the state-mandated allocation of 35,239 additional housing units with the acknowledgement that the HCD required StanCOG to accept an artificially high allocation so that local jurisdictions would be able to receive state certification for their General Plan Housing Elements. 15 Stanislaus Council of Governments, Regional Housing Needs Assessment, p. 2, July 2003. 16 Ibid, p.16. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 According to the RHNA, a balanced jobs/housing ratio is 1.5 jobs per household.17 The StanCOG forecast for regional housing needs would maintain the County’s current jobs/housing ratio and meet the region’s goal of providing sufficient local housing, while protecting the County’s agricultural resources.18 The majority of jobs within Stanislaus County are in its urban areas; most of these jobs are in the Modesto/Ceres urbanized area, including the large industrial parks within their spheres of influence, and the Turlock urbanized area. These urban areas, in particular the Modesto/Ceres urban area, are also the location of most of the households in the County. The RHNA projects the greatest increase in housing units for Modesto, Turlock, and Ceres. City of Modesto Projections The Modesto Urban Area General Plan has designated a substantial amount of land for both housing and job-generating land uses. Much of this land is located within the City’s Planned Urbanizing Areas or in unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County surrounding the City but within its planning area and sphere of influence. Substantial capacity for providing job- generating uses and development remains in the Modesto area and its surroundings. In 2000, the total number of jobs in Modesto was estimated to be about 75,645 and the total number of households or occupied housing units was estimated to be about 64,959; therefore the jobs-to- housing ratio was about 1.16.19 The number of employed persons per household is another way of looking at jobs and housing. The Housing Element identifies 76,567 employed residents in Modesto.20 This results in about 1.18 wage-earners per household in Modesto; it is not likely that all of the employed residents work in Modesto, so the number of employed residents is not directly related to the number of jobs in the City. The “Housing Needs Assessment” section in the City of Modesto 2003-2008 Housing Element summarizes the population, housing, and employment challenges facing Modesto. Notable jobs- housing issues facing the City are the lag in employment growth compared to the City’s population and housing growth during the past 10 years; the geographic and income mismatch between jobs and housing in Modesto and the people employed in those jobs, resulting in a large 17 Ibid, pp. 15-16 18 Ibid, p. 2. 19 City of Modesto, City of Modesto 2003-2008 Housing Element, Table 2-25: Households and Employment, Modesto and Stanislaus County, p. 2-32. 20 Ibid, Table 2-22 - Occupations of Modesto Residents, 1990 and 2000, p. 2-30. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 number of commuters, increased commuting time, and attendant adverse effects on traffic and air quality;21 and the lack of multi-family housing construction. Between 2003 and 2025, the City of Modesto’s population is projected to grow from approximately 203,30022 to 400,000.23 TAZ file data from Modesto’s Final MEIR includes employment information. According to this data, about 304,000 persons are expected to be employed within the General Plan boundary by 2025.24 About 147,900 of those persons would be employed in the City’s Planned Urbanizing Areas.25 Between the years 2000 and 2025, the number of jobs in Modesto is projected to grow from about 75,645 to 304,000. Using the average household size of 2.86 persons from the Housing Element26 beyond 2000, it can be estimated that Modesto could have about 139,860 households by 2025 (400,000 persons divided by 2.86). Therefore, the jobs-to-housing ratio would be 2.17 in 2025. According to the Housing Element, a jobs-to-housing ratio of 1.1 indicates that the City offers an adequate number of jobs.27 The projections for population, employment, and housing units at full buildout of the Modesto’s planning area in 2025 indicate that Modesto will continue to provide an adequate number of jobs. However, as stated in the City’s Housing Element, “the jobs-housing issues confronting the City seem to relate more to the spatial mismatch between the jobs located in Modesto and the people working those jobs, as evidenced by the large number of commuters crossing the Altamont Pass on a daily basis. Of equal concern is the mismatch between the types of jobs offered and associated pay scales, and the cost of housing in the City.”28 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Regional Housing Needs Determination In order to respond to the growing population and household growth of the state, and to ensure the availability of decent affordable housing for all income groups, the State of California enacted Government Code Section 65584 in 1981, which requires each Council of Governments (COG) 21 Spatial mismatch of jobs and housing is also due to an increase in number of workers from the Bay Area seeking affordable housing in Modesto and surrounding areas. 22 On January 1, 2003, the California Department of Finance estimated the City of Modesto’s population to be approximately 203,300. This number was used for City population growth analysis as part of its Final MEIR on the update to the Urban Area General Plan. 23 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, Appendix F, Table F-1, Estimated Development Capacity: Population, Employment and Housing Units – 2002 General Plan by Growth Strategy Area, March 2003. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 City of Modesto, City of Modesto 2003-2008 Housing Element, Table 2-16 - Household Types, p. 2-24. 27 City of Modesto, City of Modesto 2003-2008 Housing Element, p. 2-32. 28 Ibid. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 to determine state-identified housing needs for its region periodically. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for determining this regional need and for initiating the process by which each COG must then distribute its share of statewide need to all jurisdictions within its region. Each jurisdiction within the COG region is required by law to incorporate its housing need numbers into an updated version of its General Plan Housing Element. This statute requires each COG to develop a new Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) every five years that addresses its housing needs for a period of approximately 7.5 years. In this cycle, the planning period for Stanislaus County Council of Government is from January 1, 2001 through July 1, 2008. Government Code Section 65584 requires that each county’s or city’s share of regional housing needs consider the housing needs of persons at all income levels. Four income levels are assessed: “Very Low Income,” “Low Income,” “Moderate Income,” and “Above Moderate Income.” Based on a Federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) formula, Stanislaus County is estimated to have the following distribution (by percentage) of income levels: Very Low Income - 22 percent, Low Income - 17 percent, Moderate Income - 21 percent, and Above Moderate Income - 40 percent. For the 2001-2008 planning period, the StanCOG Policy Board has established housing needs for each of the jurisdictions within its boundaries using the above- stated regional income level percentages. This is consistent with the state statute. The HCD estimated that the County housing need would be 35,239 units, with Modesto’s share at 15,347 units over the 7.5-year time frame, from January 1, 2001 to July 1, 2008. In July 2003, StanCOG adopted the HCD’s proposed RHNA and determined that Modesto’s share of needed housing units would be 15,347, using a "fair share" approach based on household and job growth in the region. As explained above in “Jobs / Housing Balance,” StanCOG’s regional housing needs forecast was lower than that of the HCD. StanCOG’s allocation of 15,347 housing units to Modesto means that Modesto would need to construct an average of about 2,046 new housing units per year. According to the City of Modesto Building Department, Modesto constructed about 1,200 new housing units in 2001.29 Thus, Modesto did not meet its share of the countywide housing allocation for the first year of the seven-year planning period. In terms of affordability, the distribution of needed housing units by income level for Modesto is as follows: Very Low Income 3,376 units Low Income 2,609 units Moderate Income 3,223 units Above Moderate Income 6,139 units Total 15,347 units 29 City of Modesto, City of Modesto 2003-2008 Housing Element, Figure 2-3, p. 2-4. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 As part of the Housing Element update in 2002, Modesto conducted a residential sites inventory of all land suitable for residential development. Approximately 1,372 acres of residentially zoned lands that are vacant or underdeveloped within the city limits are available for this future residential development. An additional 4,211 acres within Modesto’s Sphere of Influence could also accommodate construction of housing to meet Modesto’s fair share housing requirement.30 The Housing Element states that “given that the RHNA is 15,347 units, the City estimates an overall surplus of 4,805-4,955 housing units. By income group, the City expects to provide sites to exceed its housing unit allocations by 55-202 housing units for very-low and low income households, to exceed the moderate income group by 153 units and to exceed the above moderate income group by 4,597 housing units.”31 The Housing Element further states that “to ensure that these housing units are provided, all new residentially designated areas in developing Comprehensive Planning Districts will include a minimum of 15 percent area designated for multi-family development.”32 The Housing Element requires at least 15 percent of the net residentially designated land to be developed with multi-family development at an average density of 22 units per acre. There are 279 net acres of residentially designated land based on 480 gross acres and subtracting non- residential land including roads.33 A minimum of 42 acres must be provided for multi-family development and at 22 units per acre, a minimum of 924 multi-family units must be provided. City of Modesto General Plan Policies The Community Development and Housing Chapters of the Urban Area General Plan and the City of Modesto 2003-2008 Housing Element provide goals related to balanced population, housing and employment growth. The following statement from the Modesto Urban Area General Plan highlights policies furthering these goals that are relevant to the proposed project: A guiding force in this General Plan is economic development to provide jobs to match population growth. This General Plan provides for a total of 5,000 acres of new Business Park and 1,000 acres of Commercial land uses. Through these new land uses, along with miscellaneous support commercial land uses in the future residential areas, opportunities for land use supporting more than 144,000 new jobs are created in this General Plan. III-9 of the Final MEIR) 30 Ibid, Table 4-3 - Residential Site Inventory within City Limits and Table 4-4 -Residential Sites Inventory within City Sphere of Influence, pp. 4-4 and 4-9. 31 Ibid, p. 4-10. 32 Ibid. 33 This calculation is based on 480 gross acres, including perimeter arterial streets measured to the centerline. The Housing Element also uses 480 acres, subtracting 25 percent of the gross area for street rights-of-way. The Housing Element calculation is based on Village Residential designation of 413 acres minus 10% of nonresidential uses and 25% of street area. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan – Community Development Policy B.3.a. Commercial Purpose and Intent: To provide for the full range of commercial uses to serve the current and projected needs of Modesto’s population. Policy B.6.a. Village Residential (VR), Purpose and Intent: To provide for the development of urban “villages”. Villages are mixed-use, compact, pedestrian- and transit-oriented development. Villages should be comprehensively planned using the Comprehensive Planning process presented in Section III-D. Policy B.7.a. Regional Commercial (RC), Purpose and Intent: To provide for large-scale commercial areas for the sale of goods and services which meet the needs of the region as well as the community. Policy C.1.d. Overall Land Use Policies: Specific Plans, adopted pursuant to Section 65540 et seq. of the California Government Code, may be used to provide primary policy guidance to future development within their respective geographic areas. Policy C.3.a. Neotraditional Planning Principles: Communities or neighborhoods should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. Policy C.3.c. Neotraditional Planning Principles: Communities or neighborhoods should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries. Policy C.3.d. Neotraditional Planning Principles: Businesses within a community or neighborhood should provide a range of job types for the community’s or neighborhood’s residents. Policy D.1.d. Comprehensive Planning Districts: Each Comprehensive Plan should include a long-range financing strategy which provides reasonable estimates of the costs of on- and off-site infrastructure to support the proposed development pattern. The strategy should generally address public facility funding, including schools, for any development project which serves to implement the subject Comprehensive Plan. If new public facilities are required which will also serve the broader community, the Comprehensive Plan should include options for broad-based funding mechanisms. Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District, 6.a.: A total of 7,300 dwelling units was assumed for this Comprehensive Planning District. Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District, 6.a.: A total of 8,550 employees was assumed for this Comprehensive Planning District. City of Modesto 2003-2008 – Housing Element Goal 7: Promote Jobs-Housing balance. Policy 7.1: Encourage the development of workforce housing. Policy 7.2: Promote economic development efforts that create employment opportunities for City residents. Policy 7.3: Work with Stanislaus County and neighboring jurisdictions to improve the jobs- housing balance in the region. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 IMPACTS AND MITIGATION SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Development within the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan project area would have a significant impact if it were to: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). Remove substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. These questions were considered in the Initial Study (Appendix The Initial Study found that the project would introduce a significant number of new housing units and jobs that could have a potentially significant impact on the City of Modesto’s population and employment base, resulting in an increased demand for housing. These issues are discussed below under Impacts M.1 and M.2. The Initial Study found that implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of an estimated 17 existing home sites and the displacement of about 50 persons. The proposed project includes a maximum of 3,241 housing units, and the Initial Study concluded that the removal of housing units and the displacement of 50 persons would not likely result in a significant impact. The Initial Study also concluded that the displaced persons would likely find new housing within the City of Modesto, in nearby cities or in unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County. As a result, further discussion of these topics has not been included. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project provides for the consideration and adoption of a Specific Plan to act as a guide for the future mixed-use development of a 454-acre area known as the Tivoli Specific Plan in an unincorporated area of Stanislaus County adjacent to Modesto’s northeast border. The Tivoli Specific Plan would include 3,241 dwelling units on 286 acres, 14 acres of neighborhood- serving commercial, 6 acres of general commercial, 67 acres of regional-serving commercial, and 2 acres of professional office space. In addition, land is reserved for the development of an elementary school and community park. For environmental review purposes, two different development levels were evaluated: 2012 and project buildout. Project buildout was analyzed for 2017 and 2025, buildout of the Modesto Urban Area General Plan. The basic difference between the 2012 and the project buildout level is that the 2012 project would include 724 fewer residential units and 104,544 fewer gross square feet of commercial use within the northeastern corner of the Tivoli Specific Plan area. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Impact N.1. Development of the proposed project would directly induce population growth that could cause the City to exceed its population projections. (Significant and Unavoidable) The proposed project would include 67 acres of Regional Serving Commercial (RSC) and 387 acres of Village Residential (VR)34 land uses. The proposed 454-acre Tivoli Specific Plan is part of the 1,700-acre Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District (CPD). Housing estimates for this CPD indicate that at full buildout there would be a total of 7,300 dwelling units on the 1,430 acres designated as Village Residential, resulting in an average of 5.1 dwelling units per acre (du/acre).35 The VR land use designation includes both residential and commercial uses as part of the City’s mixed-use growth strategy for its Planned Urbanizing Area. The residential component of the project would include single-family and multi-family uses and would add approximately 7,199 residents to the City of Modesto economy by 2012 (2,517 dwelling units multiplied by 2.86 persons per household). At full buildout of the project, in 2017, the proposed project would add 2,071 additional residents to Modesto’s economy (724 dwelling units multiplied by 2.86 persons per household) for a total of approximately 3,241 dwelling units with 9,269 residents.36 The City of Modesto projects a total of 138,000 dwelling units in its Baseline Developed Area, its Redevelopment Area, and its Planned Urbanizing Area by 2025. Of these 138,000 dwelling units, 50,385 would be within the Planned Urbanizing Area, which would include the residential component of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan. The proposed 3,241 dwelling units would make up approximately 44 percent of the 7,300 dwelling units planned for the Roselle/Claribel CPD although it makes up just 27 percent of the CPD area. The development of the residential component of the Tivoli Specific Plan at the proposed density of about 8.4 du/acre (3,241 dwelling units divided by 387 acres of VR land uses) would exceed the Roselle/Claribel CPD 34 Village Residential is implemented through a specific plan that contains mixed use areas that are predominantly single family residential but with multi-family and senior housing, commercial uses, schools, and parks. 35 City of Modesto, Modesto Urban Area General Plan, p. III-71, March 2003. 36 The Tivoli Specific Plan area contains a total of 480 gross acres. This includes about 26 acres located within the future perimeter arterial streets rights-of-way, measured to the centerline of the streets. The net acreage total of 454 acres is used as the basis for the number of dwelling units generated by the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.10a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 standard of 5.1 du/acre, resulting in approximately 926 more dwelling units and approximately 2,648 more residents than projected. Upon completion of the initial phase of development in 2012, the proposed project’s 7,199 potential residents would represent approximately 2.7 percent of the City’s estimated population (268,000). At project buildout, the proposed project’s 9,269 potential residents would represent approximately 3.5 percent of the City’s estimated population (312,600) in 2017, and approximately 2.3 percent of the City’s estimated population (400,000) in 2025.37 Based on these percentages, project-related housing construction would contribute to an increase in Modesto’s 37 The City’s annual population growth rate from 2003 to 2025 is estimated to be about 3.12 percent. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 population over a 20-year planning horizon but would not cause the City as a whole to exceed its projections. However, future development of the remainder of the Roselle/Claribel CPD at an average of 5.1 du/acre would exceed the City’s projections for residential development within this Comprehensive Planning District. Therefore, development of the remaining 1,246 acres of the Roselle/Claribel CPD, of which 986 would be in the VR land use designation (1,700-acre CPD minus the 454-acre Tivoli project and minus the 260-acre designated Business Park area) would increase the total number of dwelling units projected for the Roselle/Claribel CPD by 970, from 7,300 to 8,270. The additional 970 dwelling units would add approximately 2,774 potential residents (970 dwelling units multiplied by 2.86 persons per household) to the CPD. Therefore, the proposed project would induce population growth beyond that projected for this CPD and would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. The physical environmental impact resulting from the activities of these additional residents are discussed in the analyses found in the following sections of this EIR: Chapter IV.D, Transportation and Circulation; Chapter IV.E, Air Quality; and Chapter IV.F, Noise. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation available. Impact N.2. Development of the proposed project would increase the number of jobs located within the City which could affect the demand for housing. (Less than Significant) The proposed project area is currently designated as Village Residential (VR).38 The VR land use designation includes both residential and commercial uses as part of the City’s mixed-use growth strategy for its Planned Urbanizing Area. An estimated 67 acres of the project site is being changed from VR to Regional Commercial to allow regional-serving commercial uses. The commercial component of the project would include regional-serving and neighborhood and general commercial uses as well as professional office uses. At the completion of the first phase of development in 2012, the commercial component of the proposed project would add approximately 2,117 employees to the Modesto workforce.39 The 38 See footnote 34 for a definition of this land use designation. 39 Estimated employment for Regional Serving Commercial uses is based on a ratio of approximately 545 square feet per employee. This ratio is derived from the Regional Commercial Land Use section of the City’s Final General Plan EIR, which estimates 24 employees per acre, and the proposed project’s Floor to Area ratio (FAR) for the Regional Serving Commercial site of 0.3. Estimated employment for Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial, and Professional Office uses is based on a ratio of approximately 502 square feet per employee. This ratio is derived from the Business Park Land Use section of the City’s Final General Plan EIR, which estimates 26 employees per acre, and the proposed project’s Floor to Area ratio (FAR) for the Commercial and Office sites of 0.3. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 land reserved for the proposed elementary school would add approximately 30 employees.40 Thus, the proposed project would generate a total of approximately 2,147 employees at the end of the first phase of development in 2012. At full buildout of the proposed project in 2017 the proposed project would add an additional 63 employees to the Modesto workforce. Thus, the proposed project would generate a total of 2,210 employees at full buildout in 2017.41 The Modesto Urban Area General Plan has designated a substantial amount of land for job- generating land uses, and much of this land is located within the City’s Planned Urbanizing Areas or in unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County surrounding the City but within its planning area and sphere of influence. Substantial capacity for providing job-generating uses and development remains in the Modesto area and its surroundings. City employment projections estimate that about 304,000 persons are expected to be employed within the General Plan boundary by 2025.42 About 147,900 of those persons would be employed in the City’s Planned Urbanizing Areas. Based on the StanCOG annual employment increase of 5.33 percent,43 which is intended to mirror population growth through 2025, it is expected that in 2012 there would be approximately 141,060 persons employed in Modesto and in 2017 there would be 182,880 persons employed in Modesto. Employment estimates for the Roselle/Claribel CPD indicate that there would be a total of 8,550 employees in the CPD, with most employment generated by the Business Park designation.44 The proposed commercial land uses and the elementary school would generate approximately 26 percent of the total number of employees planned in the Roselle/Claribel CPD. The proposed project would represent about 1.5 percent of the City’s estimated total employment in 2012, about 1.2 percent of the City’s estimated total employment in 2017, about 1.5 percent of the City’s estimated total employment in 2025 for its Planned Urbanizing Areas, and about 0.7 percent of the City’s estimated total employment in 2025. Based on these percentages, it is reasonable to assume that project-generated employment within the Roselle/Claribel CPD would be included in the City’s employment growth projections. This anticipated growth in employment would contribute to local (City of Modesto) and regional (Stanislaus County) employment growth over the next 20 years, which would in turn indirectly affect housing demand over that same period. 40 Ronald Lebs, Business Manager, Sylvan Union School District, telephone conversation with Turnstone Consulting, March 3, 2006. 41 See footnote 37. 42 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, Appendix F, Table F-1, Estimated Development Capacity: Population, Employment and Housing Units – 2002 General Plan by Growth Strategy Area, March 2003. 43 City of Modesto, City of Modesto 2003-2008 Housing Element, pp. 2-17 - 2-18, April 27, 2004. 44 City of Modesto, Modesto Urban Area General Plan, p. III-71, March 2003. ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 However, project-related employment growth would not induce population growth that is not accounted for in the Modesto Urban Area General Plan. Modesto’s share of the California Department of Housing and Community Development Department’s projected housing needs for the region from 2001 to 2008 has been incorporated into StanCOG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment and the City’s 2003-2008 Housing Element of the Urban Area General Plan. The demand for housing generated by project-related employment would be consistent with (and part of) Modesto’s expected employment and housing growth over the next 20 years. Since the proposed project would provide new job opportunities and would not induce unanticipated employment growth, it would promote a balanced jobs-to- housing ratio and result in a less-than-significant impact on population growth and housing demand in Modesto. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. Impact N.3. Development of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan could contribute to substantial growth in undeveloped areas and require extension of major infrastructure. (Less than Significant) At project buildout, the proposed project would add approximately 9,269 residents and 2,210 workers in an area that is currently primarily agricultural with some commercial/office and single-family residential uses. The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan is part of the Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District which received an affirmative Measure M vote in the 2001 General Election. This vote requires that a Specific Plan be developed to guide the future growth of this portion of the Roselle/Claribel CPD. Measure M also ensured consistency with policies of the Urban Area General Plan, as development of a facility master plan and financing plan as a mechanism that would fund infrastructure improvements would be necessary for development of the proposed project. This proposed development would require substantial infrastructure improvements, including an expansion of the City=s wastewater collection facilities, its domestic water system, new roadways, and new or upgraded drainage facilities. These infrastructure improvements are proposed as part of the Tivoli Specific Plan. It would also contribute to the need for the expansion of community services, such as new fire and police stations, a new school, and recreational amenities in the residential component of the project. These topics are discussed in detail in Sections IV.L, IV.M, IV.D, IV.I, and IV.K of this EIR document, respectively. The Modesto Urban Area General Plan anticipated a substantial amount of urban growth on previously undeveloped land (Planned Urbanizing Area) adjacent to its Baseline Developed Area and on land within the City=s sphere of influence. Therefore, the annexation of previously undeveloped land into the City’s boundary ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation N. Population and Housing Turnstone Consulting, T160 IV.N.14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 and the extension of City infrastructure into the proposed project area are not considered to be significant impacts. Mitigation Measure. No mitigation necessary. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Turnstone Consulting, T160 V.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR –Volume I February 26, 2008 V. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS A. GROWTH INDUCEMENT Growth inducement under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) considers the ways in which proposed and foreseeable project activities could encourage and facilitate population and economic growth, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Direct increases in population and employment, such as those of the proposed project, may induce indirect economic and population growth and result in the demand for a range of goods and services to meet the production and consumption needs of the additional economic and residential activity. This section summarizes the project’s direct growth in population and employment, and describes the likelihood of associated induced growth and its potential impact. The proposed 454-acre Tivoli Specific Plan proposes a large-scale, mixed-use development at varying residential densities. Development of the mixed-use project would include 3,241 dwelling units (du) on 286 acres of the project site proposed for residential land uses. It would also introduce 14 acres of neighborhood-serving commercial, 6 acres of general commercial, 67 acres of regional-serving commercial, 2 acres of professional office space, a 14-acre elementary school site, about 30 acres of parks and open space, 4 acres of public infrastructure, and about 31 acres of interior collector roadways to the southeast corner of City of Modesto’s 1,700-acre Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District. POPULATION Development of the 3,241-unit Tivoli Specific Plan project to its contemplated capacity would contribute approximately 9,269 additional persons to the City of Modesto’s population at full buildout in 2017. Modesto’s population is projected to be approximately 268,000 by the year 2012, approximately 312,600 by the year 2017, and approximately 400,000 by the year 2025.1, 2 The proposed project would represent approximately 3.5 percent of the City’s estimated population (312,600) in 2017, and approximately 2.3 percent of the City’s estimated population (400,000) in 2025. Based on these percentages, implementation of the Tivoli Specific Plan would contribute to an increase in Modesto’s population over a 20-year planning horizon but would not cause the City as a whole to exceed the population threshold set out in the Urban Area General Plan. 1 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, Appendix F, Table F-1, Estimated Development Capacity: Population, Employment and Housing Units – 2002 General Plan by Growth Strategy Area, March 2003. 2 According to the traffic model transportation analysis zones (TAZ) file data in Modesto’s Final MEIR, Modesto is projected to have an annual average population growth of 3.12 percent between 2003 and 2025. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Other CEQA Considerations Turnstone Consulting, T160 V.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR –Volume I February 26, 2008 Other residential developments are anticipated in the vicinity of the Tivoli Specific Plan project, contributing to additional population for the City of Modesto. Modesto estimates there are 1,900 units currently under construction, approved, or planned in northeast Modesto, adding about 5,500 new residents to the City of Modesto.3 Additional residential development is anticipated between 2008 and 2010 in northeast Modesto, including two specific plan areas: Pelandale- McHenry Specific Plan area, and Village One Specific Plan area and environs.4 Including the Tivoli project, anticipated growth in the northeast area of Modesto could potentially total about 14,350 new residents by 2011. In the longer term (after 2011) the remaining portion of the Roselle / Claribel Comprehensive Planning District, as well as the Hetch Hetchy Comprehensive Planning District, could potentially be developed, adding an additional 9,100 units (26,500 persons) to the northeast area of Modesto.5 The City of Modesto also expects development of other specific plan areas in the longer-term: the Johansen-Empire and North Specific Plan Areas. It is estimated that development of these specific plan areas could result in future population of about 8,990 persons. EMPLOYMENT According to the California Employment Development Department, Modesto currently has an unemployment rate of about 7.5 percent, which is lower than the current unemployment rate (about 9 percent) for Stanislaus County as a whole.6 Employment opportunities attributable to the development of the commercial/office and the public/quasi-public components of the proposed project are expected to be filled largely by residents of the region, including the residents of Modesto and residents of the Tivoli Specific Plan project site. Construction of the 454-acre Tivoli Specific Plan would be phased over a 10-year period and would not require unusual construction methods. Construction labor requirements for the project, therefore, would be expected to be filled by the regional labor market available for construction projects in Modesto and nearby surrounding areas. The Modesto Urban Area General Plan has designated a substantial amount of land for job- generating land uses, and much of this land is located within the City’s Planned Urbanizing Areas or in unincorporated areas of Stanislaus County surrounding the City but within its planning area and sphere of influence. Substantial capacity for providing job-generating uses and development remains in the Modesto area and its surroundings. City employment projections estimate that 3 Keyser Marston Associates, Tivoli Regional Commercial Project, City of Modesto, CA, July 2006, pp.14-16 4 ibid 5 ibid 6 California Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division, Labor Force Data for Sub-County Areas, February 2006. Accessed online at www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/stanisub.xls. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Other CEQA Considerations Turnstone Consulting, T160 V.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR –Volume I February 26, 2008 about 304,000 persons are expected to be employed within the General Plan boundary by 2025.7 About 147,900 of those persons would be employed in the City’s Planned Urbanizing Areas. Based on the StanCOG annual employment increase of 5.33 percent,8 which is intended to mirror population growth through 2025, it is expected that in 2012 there would be approximately 141,060 persons employed in Modesto and in 2017 there would be 182,880 persons employed in Modesto. At full buildout in 2017, the proposed commercial and public components (elementary school) of the proposed project would generate approximately 2,210 Modesto-based jobs. The proposed project would represent about 1.2 percent of the City’s estimated total employment in 2017, about 1.5 percent of the City’s estimated total employment in 2025 for its Planned Urbanizing Areas, and about 0.7 percent of the City’s estimated total employment in 2025. This anticipated growth in employment would contribute to local (City of Modesto) and regional (Stanislaus County) employment growth over the next 20 years, which would in turn indirectly affect housing demand over that same period. However, project-related employment growth would not induce population growth that is not accounted for in the Modesto Urban Area General Plan. Given current unemployment rates in Modesto and generally higher unemployment rates in nearby communities and the County as a whole, it is possible that new jobs generated by the proposed project could induce workers to relocate to Modesto, thereby resulting in secondary impacts on City facilities and services because of an influx of new residents. Although residential development in Modesto has not historically kept pace with the expansion of employment opportunities, the number of new project-generated jobs is not expected to exceed the planned housing supply. Development of the Tivoli Specific Plan area could encourage the conversion of additional Prime Farmland in the vicinity of the project. It is anticipated that the proposed project would serve as an anchor, attracting additional businesses to the project vicinity to serve the residential and commercial uses. The increased desirability of the vicinity for urban development and the resulting increase in land values would increase inducements for agricultural property owners to sell. Development of the project would also increase roadway capacity and improve other infrastructure, and justify the area as a rational location to receive additional development. The quantity of Prime Farmland that would be lost as a result of the project’s growth-inducing impacts cannot be projected, or distinguished from the loss that would result under the current 7 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, Appendix F, Table F-1, Estimated Development Capacity: Population, Employment and Housing Units – 2002 General Plan by Growth Strategy Area, March 2003. 8 City of Modesto, City of Modesto 2003-2008 Housing Element, pp. 2-17 - 2-18, April 27, 2004. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Other CEQA Considerations Turnstone Consulting, T160 V.4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR –Volume I February 26, 2008 Village Residential designation of the area within the Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District. The Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan anticipated that from 1995-2025, approximately 22,600 acres of Prime Farmland in the Planned Urbanizing Area would be converted to urban uses, resulting in a significant and unavoidable impact.9 Conversion of the project site and other nearby agricultural parcels in the Roselle/Claribel CPD would be expected to occur at some point in the reasonably foreseeable future based on anticipated population growth in Modesto and Stanislaus County that would result in continued demand for new housing and demand for job growth in the City and the region. To the extent that future conversion and development of additional Prime Farmland on adjacent parcels can reasonably be anticipated, an agricultural easement on these sites could mitigate future losses of prime farmland. However, implementation of such a measure is contingent on the ability of the project sponsor to secure such easements from nearby landowners who may be unwilling to encumber their property. Further, such a measure would not be consistent with Modesto’s Urban Area General Plan, which calls for these areas to be developed and would not provide effective mitigation for the growth-inducing impacts of the project, even if it would prevent the conversion of adjacent parcels encumbered by agricultural easements. Future development attracted to the area would merely avoid these parcels and locate at greater distances from the project site. Such an outcome would run counter to LAFCO, County, and City policies that provide for the orderly expansion of cities and encourage compact urban development patterns. In time, the value of such protected parcels for agricultural production would be impaired, as these parcels would cease to occupy the edge of urban development but would be absorbed within, as isolated fragments of farmland. Prior to any actual development in the Tivoli Specific Plan area, the City Council will consider creation of a farmland mitigation program to determine whether such a program could feasibly provide partial mitigation of the loss of prime farmland (see Mitigation Measure B.1, in Section IV.B, Agricultural Resources). The potential growth-inducing impact may therefore be partially mitigated by the creation of a farmland mitigation program. Compliance with a future farmland mitigation program would be a condition precedent to the issuance of building permits for the proposed project. A future farmland mitigation program has the potential to support farmland preservation projects in Stanislaus County. 9 City of Modesto, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan, 2003, p. V-4-10. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Other CEQA Considerations Turnstone Consulting, T160 V.4a Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR –Volume I February 26, 2008 Such a mitigation measure would not reduce impacts on agricultural resources or growth- inducing impacts to less-than-significant levels. The project is expected to be completely built out by about 2017; given this timeframe for the development of the Tivoli Specific Plan project, ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Other CEQA Considerations Turnstone Consulting, T160 V.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR –Volume I February 26, 2008 any growth-inducing impacts on agricultural parcels adjacent to the project site would occur gradually. INFRASTRUCTURE Supplying water to serve the Tivoli Specific Plan project could induce growth. The proposed land uses for the Tivoli Specific Plan were accounted for in the 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), and the development of the Tivoli Specific Plan to its contemplated capacity would result in lower-than-average demand than that assumed in the UWMP. In addition, because population growth has been slower than originally assumed in the UWMP, the Water Supply Assessment finds that actual water demand would be lower than assumed in the UWMP, and more water would be available in early years to serve the proposed project site. Thus the volume of water made available is less than the planned demand, leaving excess capacity for additional development. Wastewater capacity and infrastructure for the Tivoli site would increase in near-term tertiary treatment capacity, along with the DAF (and Secondary Plant improvements) units, over the next five years, including development in the Tivoli Specific Plan area (2006 to 2011). This would translate into approximately 36,400 residents (12,728 residential units multiplied by 2.86 persons per household). The 12,728 residential units would make up approximately 9 percent of the total number of units projected in 2025. The 36,400 potential residents would represent approximately 9 percent of the City’s estimated population (400,000) in 2025. Therefore, supplying wastewater to serve the Tivoli Specific Plan project could induce growth in the City of Modesto. However, housing construction in the area that would be served by treatment facilities beyond Tivoli would contribute to an increase in Modesto’s population over a 20-year planning horizon, but would not cause the City to exceed its projections. The proposed DAF units would be sufficient to serve Tivoli, without guaranteeing Tivoli this capacity. Additionally, the City would allocate its expanded wastewater treatment and disposal capability as the need arises (and would have to stop development, if the need arises). Roadway improvements included in the proposed project would not open new areas to development other than those of the project site. Surrounding areas are already accessible by motor vehicle on existing roadways. Although new infrastructure, service improvements, and amenities offered by the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan project could make residential development northeast of the City more attractive and economical, demand for such development would have to be absorbed within the Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District and other adjacent Comprehensive Planning Districts such as the Village One, Johansen, and Empire North. The growth management policies of the City’s Urban Area General Plan would prevent additional development outside of the ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Other CEQA Considerations Turnstone Consulting, T160 V.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR –Volume I February 26, 2008 City’s planning area. Additional housing demand, beyond that generated by the project, would then be directed to other underdeveloped areas of the City’s planning area that are already designated for residential development. Based on the above discussion, the new infrastructure improvements analyzed in the EIR for the Tivoli Specific Plan would not cause growth-inducing impacts, either alone or in combination. B. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a discussion of cumulative impacts. In this EIR, cumulative impacts are discussed in applicable sections of Chapter IV. C. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED In accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of this section is to identify significant impacts that could not be eliminated or reduced to less-than-significant levels by implementing mitigation measures included in the proposed project or identified in the EIR. The project, with mitigation, would have the following unavoidable significant impacts: Implementation of the proposed project would directly result in the permanent loss of Prime Farmland. (See Impact B.1) Implementation of the proposed project would incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of prime agricultural land in the Modesto area and in eastern Stanislaus County. (See Impact B.3) Construction and occupancy of Phase 1 of the proposed project would result in significant impacts at study intersections adjacent to and near the project site in 2012. (See Impact D.1) Buildout of the proposed project would result in significant impacts at study intersections adjacent to and near the project site in 2017. (See Impact D.3) The project would contribute to significant impacts at study intersections adjacent to and near the project site in 2025. (See Impact D.5) Emissions of criteria pollutants during project construction would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. (See Impact E.1) Emissions of criteria pollutants during project operation would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. (See Impact E.2) The project would cause a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley is designated as nonattainment. (See Impact E.6) The proposed project, including annexation of the proposed parcels to the City of Modesto and changes to adopted community plans, could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ozone and PM10 attainment plans. (see Impact E.7) ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Other CEQA Considerations Turnstone Consulting, T160 V.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR –Volume I February 26, 2008 Cumulative development could lead to noise conflicts between incompatible land uses. (See Impact F.5) The project would generate wastewater in excess of the near-term disposal capacity for treated effluent from the Secondary Plant. (See Impact L.2) Implementation of the near-term tertiary treatment facilities at the Secondary Plant would directly result in the permanent loss of Prime Farmland. (See Impact L.3) Emissions of criteria pollutants during construction of wastewater system improvements would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. (See Impact L.6) Emissions of criteria pollutants during operation of the proposed wastewater system improvements would contribute to existing violations of the ambient air quality standards in the region. (See Impact L.7) Extension of the Sonoma Trunk and construction of the collection system improvements would provide wastewater collection capacity for population growth that could cause the City to exceed its population projections. (See Impact L.23) The City's wastewater collection and treatment system would not have adequate capacity to serve the project, along with anticipated cumulative development. (See Impact L.25) Implementation of the proposed project would incrementally contribute to the cumulative loss of prime agricultural land in the Modesto area and in eastern Stanislaus County. (See Impact L.26) The wastewater treatment facilities would cause a cumulatively considerable net increase of pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley is designated as nonattainment. (See Impact L.27) Development of the proposed project would directly induce population growth that could cause the City to exceed its population projections. (See Impact N.1) D. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE CAUSED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED Significant irreversible environmental changes would occur with development of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan project. The loss of agricultural resources on any parcel in the Plan Area would not be expected to be reversed once any of the project parcels develop, and would commit future generations to the residential, commercial, and light industrial uses proposed. Development would involve irreversible use of resources to construct buildings and infrastructure, including lumber, concrete, sand, gravel, masonry, metals, and water. However, development would not be expected to involve an unusual commitment of these resources, nor would it be expected to consume any of these resources in a wasteful manner. ---PAGE BREAK--- V. Other CEQA Considerations Turnstone Consulting, T160 V.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR –Volume I February 26, 2008 Development of buildings and infrastructure, and occupancy of these buildings would use energy resources in the form of fossil fuels, including fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline or diesel fuel for construction equipment and automobiles and trucks that would use the project site. Because individual buildings would be required to comply with California Code of Regulations Title 24 energy regulations, energy would not be used in a wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary manner. Energy consumption for treatment of groundwater in the future would increase demand for power generation in the region by 2020, but not in excess of expected future capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 VI. ALTERNATIVES This chapter identifies alternatives to the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan project and discusses the environmental effects associated with them. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require that an EIR describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives. The alternatives considered should focus on elimination or reduction of significant adverse impacts caused by the proposed project. The feasibility of an alternative may be determined based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (if the site is already owned by the proponent) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 The CEQA Guidelines further state that an EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to the project. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives that are infeasible. The analysis of alternatives is of benefit to decision-makers because it provides more complete information about the impacts of land use decisions, and consequently a better understanding of the inter-relationships among all of the environmental topics under evaluation. The City of Modesto must consider approval of an alternative if that alternative would substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts identified for a proposed projects and that alternative is determined to be feasible. The determination of feasibility will be made by the City of Modesto decision-makers. The following alternatives to the Tivoli Specific Plan project are discussed and evaluated in this chapter: A. No Project alternative; B. Existing General Plan alternative; and C. Reduced Footprint alternative. An off-site alternative was not considered for several reasons. One of the objectives of the Tivoli Specific Plan is to plan for development and future use of this particular property, and to further implement General Plan policies which already call for development of this property. An “off- site” alternative would not accomplish the project objectives. Another purpose of the Tivoli Specific Plan is to provide “big-box” commercial uses to this area of the City in a timely manner, which is currently underserved by such uses. There are no alternative proximate sites within or adjacent to the City with a combination suitable size, traffic access on arterial streets where such uses could be placed, and with Measure M approval. Measure M is an advisory vote for supporting extension of wastewater infrastructure. There are no other suitable proximate sites ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 within the City to provide for development of the residential uses contemplated in the Tivoli Specific Plan, other than sites which are already also designated for residential development within the Planned Urbanized Areas. The City needs to develop all of these sites with residential uses to meet its housing projections and other objectives set forth in the General Plan. Relocating such uses to other sites would involve loss of prime agricultural land and biological habitats in other areas. For example, development further to the north and east would result in "leap frog" development with greater infrastructure-related impacts, to the extent that alternative sites are not already adjacent to existing development within the City. A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate a No Project alternative. The purpose of the No Project alternative is to allow decision-makers to compare the effects of the proposed project with the effects of taking no action. DESCRIPTION For this No Project alternative, the site would remain in agricultural, residential, and commercial uses under County land use designation and zoning because the property is in Stanislaus County and has not yet been annexed into Modesto. Under the No Project alternative, the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan would not be approved and development pursuant to the Specific Plan would not be constructed. The 454-acre project site would remain in agricultural, residential, and commercial uses under County land use designation and zoning. The site would not be incorporated into the City’s boundaries. Physical conditions would remain as they currently are. There would be no loss of agricultural lands or changes to the visual character to the site. No project-generated traffic would be added to City or County roadways and no new air emissions would be generated. Biological habitat would not be altered, and there would be no changes to hydrology and water quality. There would also be no increased demand in public services or utilities for the area, or population and/or employment increases. Conditions in the future would be similar to those discussed in the individual Setting sections in Chapter IV of this Draft EIR, until the County adopts General Plan amendments establishing new land use designations or the property is annexed into the Modesto city limits. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This alternative reflects existing physical conditions in the Tivoli Specific Plan area. If existing physical conditions in the project area were to continue for the foreseeable future, conditions described in detail in the Environmental Setting for each environmental topic in Chapter IV would remain. Impacts identified for the Tivoli Specific Plan Draft EIR would not occur under the No Project alternative. B. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION Under the Existing General Plan alternative, the 454-acre project site would be annexed into Modesto, and it would be developed pursuant to the Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District (CPD). (See Figure VI.1: Existing General Plan Alternative.) Consistent with the CPD, the project site would be developed in accordance with the Village Residential (VR) land use designation, which allows mixed-use, compact, pedestrian and transit- oriented development. Development would include primarily single-family residential uses with multi-family and senior housing, commercial uses, schools, and parks uses. This alternative would allocate up to 436 acres of the project site for residential land use. This would result in construction of up to 2,315 new dwelling units on the site (5.1 units per total project site acreage), translating to a City of Modesto population increase of about 6,621 new people. Up to 4 percent, or 18 acres, of the project site, would be dedicated for commercial uses. Up to 274,428 square feet of existing and new commercial-related building area could be constructed on the project site. Up to 147,800 square feet of new commercial building area is estimated to be constructed since almost 50 percent of the 18 acres is already developed with commercial and office uses. Under the Existing General Plan alternative, nearby roadways would be developed pursuant to the Circulation and Transportation Element Diagram set forth in the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. Claratina Avenue would be constructed as a four-lane expressway. Sylvan Avenue and Oakdale Road would be constructed as six-lane principal arterial roadways. Roselle Avenue would be reconfigured as a four-lane minor arterial roadway. Collector streets would intersect with the arterials and the Claratina Expressway at quarter-mile intervals. In addition, non-motorized facilities, such as Class I bike paths and Class II bike lanes and pedestrian paths, would be constructed along Claratina, Oakdale, Sylvan, and Roselle Avenues, in accordance with the Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- 0 800 FEET . SOURCE: Dahlin Group, Turnstone Consulting DUAL USE BASIN/PARK 19.0-ACRE MABLE AVENUE BRIDGEWOOD 2.4-ACRE EXISTING COMMERCIAL 9.5-ACRE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL 2.5-ACRE EXISTING COMMERCIAL VR VR VR VR VR VR VR VR VR VR VR VR 13.5-ACRE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL OAKDALE AVENUE CLARATINA EXPRESSWAY LEGEND PROJECT BOUNDARY ROUND ABOUT PROPOSED BUS TURN-OUT LOCATION LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS/ POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT SYLVAN AVENUE ROSELLE AVENUE MC REYNOLDS AVENUE 3.5- ACRE EXISTING COMMERCIAL 454 GROSS ACRES 5.1 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE = 2315 Dwelling Units 18 ACRES COMMERCIAL= 8.4 Acres Existing Commercial 9.6 Acres Proposed Commercial VI.4 ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 IMPACTS Impacts resulting from development under the existing Urban Area General Plan as identified for the Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District would be similar to, but generally less than, those identified for the proposed project. The impacts are described below. Land Use The land use compatibility issues arising from development of the project site in conformity with the Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District would be largely similar in character to those resulting from the proposed project and described in Section IV.A, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR. However, given a lesser overall intensity of construction, and fewer residential units and employees assumed under this alternative, the potential for land use compatibility conflicts with nearby residential uses would be somewhat lessened in degree. As with the proposed project, land use impacts under this alternative would be considered less than significant for the purposes of CEQA. No changes to land use designation in the Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District would be needed for this alternative. Agricultural Resources Impacts under this alternative on agricultural resources would be identical to those of the proposed project as described in Section IV.B, Agricultural Resources, of this EIR. Like the proposed project, development under this alternative would result in the permanent loss of roughly 200 acres of Prime Farmland, a significant unavoidable impact. Visual Resources This analysis assumes specific design guidelines and standards would be established for development of the project area. These guidelines and standards would include requirements for construction intended to reduce the scale of buildings, create visual variety and interest, and reduce the visual impact of garages and parking, as well as to encourage a pedestrian scale and orientation, ensure that buildings relate appropriately to surrounding development, and create an attractive and cohesive visual identity. With implementation of these guidelines, impacts associated with the Existing General Plan alternative would be less than significant, as with the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.6 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Transportation and Circulation Assumptions The baseline transportation system improvements assumed to be constructed by the City in the future based on the Modesto Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) are the same as those identified for the analysis of the proposed project in 2012 and 2017 (see p. IV.D.16 – IV.D.23). Some have recently been accomplished and are in use, as shown on p. IV.D.19- IV.D.20. The impacts of traffic from the Existing General Plan alternative on the surrounding roadway system were assessed by establishing project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignments, in order to assign the project-generated traffic to roadway segments and intersections. Under the Existing General Plan alternative, the following six new intersections would be created: Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue Tivoli Road E at Oakdale Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road D Additionally, a new four-lane Class B expressway segment of Claratina Avenue from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue would be constructed. It is assumed that by 2012, the project would create a new segment of Claratina Avenue from Oakdale Road to Tivoli Road A. The project would fund improvement of the segment of Oakdale Road from Claratina Avenue to Sylvan Avenue to a six-lane signalized arterial with median. The project would also signalize the intersection of Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue. It is assumed in the analysis that the City would require the project sponsor to fund construction of Claratina Avenue from Tivoli Road A to Roselle Avenue; this segment of Claratina Avenue is included in the transportation analysis in the 2017 timeframe, although it may be required by the City to be constructed early in the first phase, by 2012. On Roselle Avenue the project would be required to fund improvement to a four-lane unsignalized arterial from Sylvan Avenue to the future Claratina Avenue. At the intersection of Tivoli Road E with Oakdale Road, the project would have right turn only access with outbound right turns served by an acceleration lane. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by the Existing General Plan alternative was estimated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition). The Existing General Plan alternative would generate about 29,938 new daily trips, compared to 91,000 trips per day for the project (see Table VI.1). Development with this alternative would generate about 2,320 a.m. and 3,203 p.m. peak hour trips, compared to 5,100 a.m. and 8,400 p.m. trips for the proposed project. The 2017 scenario would be full buildout of the site; therefore, the same numbers of trips would be generated by this alternative in 2025. Table VI.1: Year 2017 Existing General Plan New Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Description Amount Units ITE Code Daily In Out Total In Out Total Village Residential 2,315 DU1 210 22,155 440 1,296 1,736 1,482 857 2,338 Commercial 147.8 KSF2 820 6,306 93 59 151 264 286 551 Elem. Sch. 850 Enrl3 520 1,097 196 162 357 111 128 238 Parks/Public Infrastructure 19 Acres 411 380 38 38 76 38 38 76 TOTAL 29,938 767 1,555 2,320 1,895 1,309 3,203 Notes: 1 DU refers to total number of Dwelling Units. 2 KSF refers to 1,000 square feet (Gross), and trip generation rates are calculated per 1,000 square feet. 3 Enrl refers to number of students. Source: Dowling Associates, Inc., October 2006. Significant Traffic Impacts Significance criteria identified for the proposed project in Section IV.D, Transportation and Circulation are also applied to the Existing General Plan alternative. Year 2017 Impacts Under the Existing General Plan alternative, the following intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F, and would result in significant impacts in the Baseline-plus-Project scenario in 2017: Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Claus Road at Floyd Avenue McHenry Avenue / Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Under the Existing General Plan alternative, the following roundabout intersections would operate at unacceptable levels, with significant impacts in 2017: Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Under the Existing General Plan alternative, the following roadway segments would operate at unacceptable levels of service, resulting in significant impacts in 2017 conditions. Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Tivoli Road A Roselle Road – Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue Under the Existing General Plan alternative, significant traffic impacts would occur at 15 of the study intersections and two roadway segments, five fewer intersection locations than with the proposed project and one less roadway segment. The five intersections that would operate at unacceptable LOS with the proposed project and would improve with the Existing General Plan alternative are: Claus Road at Claribel Road (would continue to operate at LOS F, but with the same or less delay than 2017 Baseline), Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue (would improve from LOS D in the a.m. peak under 2017 Baseline conditions to LOS C, and from LOS F in the p.m. peak to LOS Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way (would improve from LOS F in the p.m. peak hour to LOSC), Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue (would remain at LOS D in the a.m. peak and LOS E in the p.m. peak, but with substantially less delay than 2017 Baseline conditions), and Terminal Road at Claribel Road (would remain LOS F in both peak hours, but with substantially less delay than 2017 Baseline conditions). Levels of Service for all study intersections in the Existing General Plan Alternative are compared to the 2017 Baseline conditions and to the proposed project scenario in 2017 in Table D.2.1 on p. in Appendix D.2. The southbound subsegment of Oakdale Road between Sylvan Avenue and Bridgewood Way would improve operations with development under this alternative from LOS F in the p.m. peak ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 hour to LOS C (see Table D.2.2 in Appendix D.2). Subsegments along the new portion of Claratina Avenue between Oakdale Avenue and Roselle Avenue would be more crowded than with the proposed project, because the residential uses in this area of the project site result in a different distribution of traffic, with more traffic using Claratina Avenue, compared to the distribution for the proposed project with regional serving commercial uses at the northwest corner of the project site. Intersection mitigation measures along this portion of Claratina Avenue would result in improved LOS along the roadway segment. Year 2017 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project in 2017, under Impact IV.D.3, would be applicable to the impacts identified for the Existing General Plan alternative except Measures D.3b, D.3i, D.3m, D.3p, and D.3t. These measures would not be necessary because traffic generated by this alternative would not result in significant changes at these five locations, although three of the five would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS. The mitigation measure identified for the proposed project along Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road to improve roadway operations—add a second lane in each direction—would be applicable to this alternative. The intersection mitigation measures identified for Claratina Avenue at Roselle Avenue and Oakdale Road would improve operations on subsegments of Claratina Avenue for this alternative, and additional mitigation measures would not be necessary. Year 2025 Cumulative Impacts The Existing General Plan alternative would generate the same number of trips in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in 2025 as shown in Table VI.1 for 2017, because the alternative is assumed to be fully built out by 2017. Under the Existing General Plan alternative, the following intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F, and would result in significant impacts in the Cumulative Baseline-plus-Project scenario in 2025: Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Floyd Avenue Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue McHenry Avenue / Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.10 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Traffic generated by the Existing General Plan alternative would have a significant impact on roundabout operations under 2025 conditions at the following intersections: Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Roselle Avenue and Tivoli Road C Roselle Avenue and Tivoli Road D The following roadway segments would operate at unacceptable service levels, resulting in significant impacts in 2025: Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Roselle Avenue Roselle Road – Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue In 2025, with the Existing General Plan alternative, significant traffic impacts would occur at 17 intersections and 2 roadway segments, 5 fewer intersections and 1 less roadway segment than with the proposed project (see Table D.2.3 and Table D.2.4 in Appendix D-2 for a comparison of intersection and roadway segment LOS). The five intersections that would improve with this alternative are: Claus Road at Claribel Road (would continue to operate at LOS F, but with the same or less delay than under 2025 Baseline conditions), Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue (p.m. peak hour LOS would improve from F to Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue (a.m. peak hour would improve from LOS F to LOS E, and p.m. peak hour would remain LOS F but with reduced delay), Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive (would continue to operate at LOS F, but with reduced delay), and Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road (would continue to operate to LOS F, but with reduced delay). Oakdale Road between Tivoli Road E and Mable Avenue would also continue to operate at LOS F with the Existing General Plan alternative, but with a improved volume-to-capacity ratio compared to 2025 Baseline conditions in the southbound direction. As in 2017, subsegments of Claratina Avenue between Oakdale Road and Roselle Avenue would operate at unacceptable service levels in the morning, evening, or both, worse than with the ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 proposed project along most of this portion of Claratina Avenue. This impact results from the presence of more residential units on the north side of the project site, with a different distribution of traffic compared to the distribution that results with the regional serving commercial use in the proposed project. Year 2025 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project in 2025, under Impact IV.D.5, would be applicable to the intersection impacts identified for the Existing General Plan alternative, except Measures D.5b, D.5i, D.5p, D.5r, and D.5v. These measures would not be necessary because traffic generated by the alternative would not result in significant changes at these five locations, although four of the five intersections would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS E or F. Mitigation Measure D.6, to add a second lane in both directions on Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road, would be applicable to this alternative. As in 2017, operations on the roadway subsegment of Claratina Avenue between approximately RSC-1 Driveway #1 and Roselle Avenue would improve with the installation of intersection improvements and further mitigation would not be necessary. Air Quality Air quality impacts would be less under the Existing General Plan alternative than those with the proposed project. Air quality impacts during construction phases would be somewhat reduced, but they would continue to warrant mitigation similar to the project in order to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. The Existing General Plan alternative traffic study did not find that this alternative would result in the degradation of LOS at intersections below the levels identified for the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative would not have significant localized CO impacts since the analysis for the proposed project indicated the localized CO concentrations would not exceed the NAAQS or SAAQS. Because this alternative would result in less residential and less commercial development, the operational impact, which consists of area-wide and motor vehicle emissions, would also be reduced. Operational emissions for this alternative were evaluated using URBEMIS Version 8.7.0 for the year 2010 shown in Table VI.2. This evaluation included air quality emissions associated with the existing commercial land uses within the proposed project area. The emissions were included to allow a comparison of future air emissions differences based on the use of the land. The results indicate that the emissions would be less than those with the proposed project, but would be above the District’s significance thresholds of 10 tons per year for ROG and NOx. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table VI.2: Existing General Plan Alternative Operational Emissions – Year 2010 (tons per year) Criteria Pollutant ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Total Emissions 78 73 517 0.42 67 Assumptions: 2,315 single-family homes. 19-acre park, 147,800-square-foot proposed shopping center, 126,900- square-foot existing shopping center. Source: URBEMIS2002 Analysis, BASELINE Environmental Consulting, October 2006. Noise Noise impacts would be similar to the proposed project under this scenario. Noise impacts during construction phases would be comparable because the proposed project area and building construction locations would be approximately the same and the types of equipment used would be the same. They would warrant mitigation similar to that for the proposed project. Some noise impacts identified for the project that would be associated with commercial and other non-residential land uses would not pertain to this alternative stationary mechanical equipment for large commercial buildings, delivery vehicle and loading dock operations at major warehouse stores, etc.). Impacts related to traffic generated by new residential and commercial development would be less than those generated by the project; any significant impacts would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels by similar measures identified for the project. Future baseline traffic noise levels alone generate significant impacts on some roadways surrounding the proposed project site (see Impact F.1), independent of the buildout for the proposed project or this alternative. Cumulative impacts for this alternative would be similar to the project, necessitating the same mitigation measures (see Mitigation F.5). Hazards As with the proposed project, development under the Existing General Plan alternative would require excavation for installation of utilities and other construction activities which could encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater, exposing workers and the public to hazardous substances. Federal, state, and local regulations require risk assessments and remedial plans should it be found that release of hazardous substances to the environment is likely. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments throughout the project site would be necessary to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Biology The Existing General Plan alternative would result in similar biological impacts to wetlands, Swainson’s Hawk and Burrowing Owl, as with the proposed project. As with the proposed project, about 2.51 acres of wetlands sustained by current irrigation practices would be eliminated, thus requiring similar wetland mitigation strategies as those described for the proposed project in Mitigation Measure H.3. Additionally, construction activities could result in a significant impact to the Swainson’s Hawk nesting and foraging areas nearby and on the project site. Potential significant impacts to Swainson’s Hawks would require pre-construction surveys and appropriate compensation for loss of foraging habitat and to avoid disturbing nests; similar mitigation measures are described for the proposed project in Mitigation Measures H.4 and H.5. Habitat for Burrowing Owl would also be lost under the Existing General Plan alternative. Implementation of formal California Department of Fish and Game guidelines could avoid and minimize impacts to Burrowing Owls; however, if these guidelines are found infeasible, compensation of land area at least 6.5 acres (2.6 ha) (the amount of land found to be necessary to sustain a pair or individual owl) would be required. These mitigation measures are the same as those for the proposed project and further described under Mitigation Measures H.6.a and H.6.b. With implementation of the above-described measures, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. Hydrology and Water Quality Future development anticipated under this scenario would create hydrology and water quality impacts similar to those discussed for the proposed project. This Existing General Plan alternative is assumed to include development of storm drainage systems similar to those described for the proposed project. Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would apply to this scenario. Therefore, like the proposed project, this scenario would have less-than- significant impacts to hydrology and water quality with implementation of the groundwater quality mitigation measures, as identified in Section IV.I., Hydrology and Water Quality. Geology, Soils and Seismicity As with the proposed project, construction of structures on the project site could be affected by expansive soils and/or settlement. This could result in damage to buildings and other improvements on the project site. Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project (Mitigation Measures J.1 and J.2) would be applicable under this alternative, therefore reducing impacts to less-than-significant levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Community Services Similar to the proposed project, the demand for police and fire services would increase under the Existing General Plan alternative. However, like the project, demand for police services would not result in an increased demand for police services. Demand for fire services, however, would not be able to be adequately met by existing or anticipated future facilities provided concurrent with development. As with the proposed project, in order to effectively serve the northeast portion of the project site, an engine and truck company would need to be sited closer to the project site in order to effectively respond to full alarm call volumes requiring an effective response force to arrive within 10 minutes. As identified in proposed project Mitigation Measure K.3, the project developers would need to provide the necessary funding for construction of a Modesto Fire Department Station to house an engine and truck company. With implementation of this mitigation measure, fire services impacts under this alternative would be considered less than significant. Utilities and Services Systems: Wastewater Impacts related to wastewater collection under the Existing General Plan alternative would be similar to the proposed project. It is assumed that the on-site collection system proposed would be included in the final project design, and that all on-site collection system improvements would be installed by the project developer prior to or concurrent with development of the project. The project applicants would be required to contribute toward their fair share of the required wastewater treatment and disposal facilities for both on-site and off-site, including increased capacity charges, through payment of future capacity charges, as adopted by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The project developers are responsible for providing all necessary wastewater facilities that are necessary to serve the site. As a result of construction and implementation of new wastewater facilities, significant impacts to agricultural resources, biological resources, air quality, hazards, water quality, geology, and population would remain as described in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems, of this EIR. Water Supply Development of the project site under the Existing General Plan alternative would result in an increased demand for domestic water. The Modesto 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) accounted for development of mixed uses on the project site as part of population projections to 2025 used in predicting the amount of water that would be necessary to serve the Modesto Water Service Area. Thus, the UWMP accounts for development on the project site under this scenario, and the scenario would not result in new demand for water in excess of that assumed in the adopted UWMP. The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Tivoli Specific ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.15 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Plan project noted that the population growth assumptions used in the UWMP assumed a lower residential density than the Tivoli Specific Plan, which resulted in a higher water demand (the higher density housing in the proposed project has a lower irrigation water demand). Under this alternative, there would be almost 1,000 fewer households and lower density than under the Tivoli Specific Plan. Thus, the UWMP projections of water demand are applicable to the Existing General Plan alternative. The UWMP found that new water supplies would be needed in 2010. The City has projects under development to meet this demand. Development on the project site would require construction of two new water wells in the project vicinity for the proposed project. Even with an increased demand compared to that of the proposed project at full buildout, however, the Existing General Plan scenario would not exceed the sustainable yield for Modesto’s share of the groundwater basin supply. Therefore, implementation of this scenario would result in less-than-significant impacts to groundwater levels. Population and Housing Under the Existing General Plan alternative, the overall 2,315new dwelling units would translate to a City of Modesto population increase of about 6,621 new people, about 2,648 less than the proposed project. Unlike with the proposed project, the total proposed number of dwelling units planned under the Existing General Plan alternative (2,315 units based on 5.1 units / acre) would be in conformity with anticipated planned Village Residential development in the Roselle / Claribel CPD. Assuming full project buildout by 2012, anticipated population grown would represent about 2.5 percent of the City’s estimated population (268,000), and would represent about 2.1 percent of the City’s estimated population (312,600) in 2017, and 1.7 percent of the City’s estimated population (400,000) in 2025. Based on these percentages, project-related housing would contribute to an increase in Modesto’s population over a 20-year planning horizon but would not cause the City as a whole to exceed its projections. Up to 18 acres of the project site would be dedicated for commercial uses. Up to 274,428 square feet of existing and new commercial-related building area could be constructed on the site. This would translate to about 545 jobs to Stanislaus County and Modesto’s economy by 2025.1 Therefore, total anticipated employment as a result of this alternative would be about 0.18 percent of the total employment projected in the General Plan boundary (304,000). Compared to the proposed project at full buildout, this scenario would contribute substantially fewer (1,665) 1 Estimated employment for Neighborhood Commercial, General Commercial and Professional Office uses is based on a ratio of approximately 502 square feet per employee. This ratio is derived from the Business Professional Land Use section of the City of Modesto Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan, which estimates 26 employees per acre and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on the Business Park site of 0.3. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.16 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 employees to the local and regional employment growth over the next 20 years. Similar to the proposed project, this scenario would not induce substantial population or housing growth at the local or regional level that is not already accounted for by the Urban Area General Plan. C. REDUCED FOOTPRINT ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION Under the Reduced Footprint alternative, the western half of the project site, about 234 acres, would be developed similar to the proposed project, but with fewer residential units. (See Figure VI.2: Reduced Footprint Alternative.) As with the proposed project, the Reduced Footprint alternative would include approximately 67 acres of Regional Serving Commercial (RSC). Approximately 167 acres would be designated Village Residential, allowing a maximum of 854 residential dwelling units to be constructed and up to 101,850 sq. ft. (4 percent with a 0.35 FAR) for commercial and office development.2 This would translate to a City population increase of about 2,442 persons and employment of 1,780 employees. The eastern 220 acres of the proposed project site are not considered part of the Reduced Footprint alternative. These acres would remain in existing agricultural and residential land uses. As with the proposed project, the Reduced Footprint alternative would require a General Plan Amendment to reclassify the portion of Claratina Avenue between Oakdale Road and Roselle Avenue from a four-lane Class B Expressway to a six-lane Principal Arterial. Oakdale Road along the west, and Sylvan Avenue along the south currently provide vehicular access to the site and would continue to do so under Reduced Footprint alternative conditions. Collector and local residential streets would be constructed within the Specific Plan area to provide ingress and egress to the various development components. In addition, non-motorized facilities, such as Class I bike paths and Class II bike lanes and pedestrian paths, would be constructed along Claratina, Oakdale, and Sylvan Avenues, as well as through the project site, in accordance with the Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan. IMPACTS Impacts resulting from development under the Reduced Footprint alternative would be similar to, but generally less than, those identified for the proposed project. The impacts are described below. 2 Traffic and Air Quality analysis in the Reduced Footprint alternative is based on anticipated development, rather than allowable development for commercial and office space within the Village Residential designated area. Anticipated commercial and office development in the VR designated area is estimated at about 75,500 sq. ft. ---PAGE BREAK--- 0 800 FEET . SOURCE: Dahlin Group, Turnstone Consulting 23# 62 62 62 62 62 62 23# E U N E V A E L A D K A O CLARATINA AVENUE SYLVAN AVENUE E U N E V A E L L E S O R LAND USE PROJECT BOUNDARY ROUND ABOUT PROPOSED BUS TURN-OUT LOCATION LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS/ POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT Village Residential: 167.5 ACRES (INCLUDES 854 DWELLNG UNITS) Regional Commercial 23# 23# VI.17 ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.18 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Land Use The land use compatibility issues arising from development of the project site would be largely similar in character to those resulting from the proposed project and described in Section IV.A, Land Use and Planning, of this EIR. Given a lesser overall intensity of construction, fewer residential units assumed under this alternative, the potential for land use compatibility conflicts with nearby existing residential uses, particularly those east of the proposed project site on Roselle Avenue, would be somewhat lessened in degree. As with the proposed project, land use impacts under this alternative would be considered less than significant for the purposes of CEQA. Agricultural Resources Impacts under this alternative on agricultural resources would be less than with the proposed project. Like the proposed project, development under this alternative would result in the permanent loss of Prime Farmland, a significant, irreversible and unavoidable impact. The majority of Prime Farmland is identified in the western portion of the proposed project site, with an approximately 50-acre area located in the southeast area. Under the Reduced Footprint alternative, the eastern half of the proposed project site would not be developed; therefore, the acres of permanent loss would be roughly 25 percent less than with the proposed project, therefore minimizing the amount of converted Prime Farmland. Visual Resources This visual impacts of the Reduced Footprint alternative would be similar to those described in Section IV.C, Visual Resources, of this EIR. Like with the proposed project, Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Standards would be proposed with this alternative. These guidelines would establish requirements for residential construction to reduce the scale of some buildings, create visual variety and interest, and reduce the visual impact of garages and parking, as well as establishing criteria for commercial and office development to encourage a pedestrian scale and orientation, ensure that buildings relate appropriately to surrounding development, and create an attractive and cohesive visual identity for the commercial and office areas. With implementation of these guidelines, impacts associated with the Reduced Footprint alternative would be less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.19 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Transportation and Circulation Assumptions The baseline transportation system improvements assumed to be constructed by the City in the future based on the Modesto CIP are the same as those identified for the analysis of the proposed project in 2012 and 2017 (see p. IV.D.16 – IV.D.23). Some have recently been accomplished and are in use, as shown on p. IV.D.19-IV.D.20, but were not constructed at the time that the main computer model analyses were prepared. The impacts of traffic from the Reduced Footprint alternative on the surrounding roadway system were assessed by establishing project trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignments, in order to assign the project-generated traffic to roadway segments and intersections. Under the Reduced Footprint alternative, the following six new intersections would be created: Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue Tivoli Road E at Oakdale Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Oakdale Road It is assumed that by 2012, the alternative would create a new segment of Claratina Avenue from Oakdale Road to Tivoli Road A. In addition, it is assumed that either the developers of the Specific Plan area or the City would extend Claratina Avenue between Tivoli Road A and Roselle Avenue by 2017, although the project site would be reduced and would not develop along the entirety of this roadway segment. The project would fund improvement of the segment of Oakdale Road from Claratina to Sylvan Avenue to a six-lane signalized arterial with median and would signalize the intersection of Oakdale Road and Claratina Avenue. Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by the reduced footprint alternative was estimated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition) for the variety of uses listed below. The Reduced Footprint alternative would generate about 67,200 new daily trips (see Table VI.3), compared to about 91,000 new daily trips for the proposed project. This alternative would generate about 3,200 trips in the a.m. peak hour and about 6,000 trips in the p.m. peak hour, compared to 5,100 a.m. and 8,400 p.m. peak hour trips for the proposed project. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.20 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Table VI.3: Year 2017 Reduced Footprint Alternative New Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Acronym Amount Units ITE Code Daily In Out Total In Out Total VLDR 24 DU1 210 287 5 17 23 20 10 30 LDR 421 DU1 210 4,986 99 292 392 334 193 526 MDR 117 DU1 231 1,275 25 73 97 65 48 113 MHDR 271 DU1 220 2,258 33 138 171 135 74 208 C 74,488 SqFt2 820 3,198 47 30 77 134 145 279 RSC-1 600,000 SqFt2 Avg. 36,520 870 708 1,581 1,558 1,608 3,168 RSC-2 300,000 SqFt2 Avg. 18,260 435 356 791 780 804 1,584 Parks/Public Infrastructure 19 Acres 411 380 38 38 76 38 38 76 TOTAL 67,164 1,552 1,652 3,208 3,064 2,920 5,984 1 DU refers to total number of Dwelling Units 2 Sq Ft refers to Gross Square Footage, and trip generation rates are calculated per 1,000 square feet. Source: Dowling Associates, Inc., October 2006. Significant Traffic Impacts Significance criteria identified for the proposed project in Section IV.D, Transportation and Circulation, are also applied to the Reduced Footprint alternative. Year 2017 Impacts Under the Reduced Footprint alternative, the following intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F, and would result in significant impacts in the 2017 Baseline-plus- Project scenario: Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Claus Road at Floyd Avenue McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Morrill Road ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.21 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Under the Reduced Footprint alternative, the following roundabout intersection would operate at unacceptable LOS, with significant impacts in 2017: Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue. Other roundabouts would operate at acceptable levels of service. The alternative would have a significant impact on the following roadway segment in 2017: Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Roselle Avenue Traffic generated by this alternative would result in significant impacts at 16 study intersections compared to 20 with the proposed project (Table D.2.1 in Appendix D.2 compares intersection LOS for 2017 Baseline with the alternatives). Operations would remain the same as 2017 Baseline conditions or would improve with this alternative: Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue (would improve from LOS F in the p.m. peak hour to LOS Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue (would remain at LOS E in the p.m. peak hour but delays would be reduced), and Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road (would remain at LOS F with approximately the same delay). The intersection of Roselle Avenue and Tivoli Road C analyzed for the proposed project and shown to operate at unacceptable levels of service would not be created in this alternative. The portion of Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road would operate at unacceptable levels of service with 2017 Baseline traffic and would worsen substantially with this alternative, as it would with the proposed project (see Table D.2.2 in Appendix D.2). The subsegment of Claratina Avenue between Oakdale Road and Roselle Avenue would operate at acceptable service levels, generally with lower volume-to-capacity ratios than with the proposed project. Oakdale Road between Sylvan Avenue and Bridgewood Way would operate at acceptable LOS C compared to LOS E with the proposed project. Year 2017 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project in 2017, under Impact IV.D.3, would be applicable to the impacts identified for the Reduced Footprint alternative, except Measures D.3i, D.3p, D.3s, and D.3t. These measures would not be necessary because traffic generated by this alternative would not result in significant changes at three of these locations, and because the intersection at Roselle Avenue and Tivoli Road C (Measure D.3s) would not be created under this alternative. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.22 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 The mitigation measure identified for the roadway segment on Claratina Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road (Measure D.4) would remain applicable under the Reduced Footprint alternative. No other mitigation would be necessary for roadway segments. Year 2025 Cumulative Impacts The Reduced Footprint alternative would generate the same number of trips in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours in 2025 as shown in Table V.3 for 2017, because the alternative is assumed to be fully built out by 2017. Under the Reduced Footprint alternative, the following study intersections would operate at unacceptable LOS E or F, and would result in significant impacts in the Cumulative Baseline-plus-Project scenario in 2025: Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Floyd Avenue Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road. Traffic generated by development in the Reduced Footprint alternative would have a significant impact on roundabout operations under 2025 conditions at the following intersection: Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.23 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Traffic generated by development in the alternative would have a significant impact on roadway operations under 2025 conditions on the following roadway: Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Roselle Avenue. The Reduced Footprint alternative would result in significant impacts at 17 of the study intersections in 2025, five fewer than the proposed project which would cause significant impacts at 22 of the study intersections (Table D.2.3 in Appendix D.2 compares intersection LOS for the 2025 Baseline and the alternatives). Two of the five intersections that would operate at unacceptable LOS with the proposed project in 2025—Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C and Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road D—would not be constructed as part of the Reduced Footprint alternative. The other three that would improve with the alternative are: Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue (would improve from LOS F to LOS D in the p.m. peak hour), Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive (would continue to operate at LOS F, but delay would be reduced compared to 2025 Baseline conditions), and Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road (would continue to operate at LOS F, but delay would be reduced compared to 2025 Baseline conditions). Traffic generated by the Reduced Footprint alternative would cause one roadway segment to operate at unacceptable levels in 2025, compared to three with the proposed project. Most Oakdale Road subsegments between Claratina Avenue and Sylvan Avenue would operate at LOS F under both scenarios, as well as under 2025 Cumulative Baseline conditions; with the Reduced Footprint alternative, volume-to-capacity ratios would be reduced compared to those with the proposed project (Table D.2.4 in Appendix D.2 presents a detailed comparison of roadway segment operations under the various scenarios studied). Operations along Roselle Avenue would improve to acceptable LOS A and B, compared to LOS F on several subsegments with the proposed project. Year 2025 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project in 2025, under Impact IV.D.5, would be applicable to the impacts identified for the Reduced Footprint alternative, except Measures D.5i, D.5r, D.5t, D.5u and D.5v. These measures would not be necessary because traffic generated by this alternative would not result in significant changes at three of these locations, and because the intersections at Roselle Avenue and Tivoli Road C (Measure D.5t) and at Roselle Avenue and Tivoli Road D (Measure D.5u) would not be created under this alternative. The mitigation measure identified for the roadway segment on Claribel Avenue between McHenry Avenue and Oakdale Road (Measure D.6) would remain applicable under the Reduced Footprint alternative. No other mitigation would be necessary for roadway segments. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.24 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Air Quality Air quality impacts under this alternative would be less than those with the proposed project. Air quality impacts during construction phases would be somewhat reduced, but they would continue to warrant mitigation similar to the project. The traffic analysis did not find that this alternative would result in the degradation of LOS at intersections beyond the level analyzed for the proposed project. This alternative would not have significant localized CO impact since the analysis for the proposed project indicated the localized CO concentrations would not exceed the NAAQS or SAAQS. Because this alternative would result in less residential and less commercial development, the operational impact would also be reduced. Operational emissions for this alternative estimated using URBEMIS Version 8.7.0 for the year 2010, and shown below in Table VI.4, indicate that the emissions would be less than with the proposed project. The emissions of NOx and ROG emissions would be above the District’s significance thresholds of 10 tons per year. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Table VI.4: Reduced Footprint Alternative Operational Emissions – Year 2010 (tons per year) Criteria Pollutant ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Total Emissions 58 65 477 0.35 59 Assumptions: 429 single-family homes, 100 low-rise condominiums, 325 apartments, 19-acre park, 25,000-square-foot office building, 50,500-square-foot neighborhood shopping center, 860,000 square-feet of regional serving commercial. Source: URBEMIS2002 Analysis, BASELINE Environmental Consulting, October 2006. Noise Noise impacts would be similar to, but in some cases less than, the proposed project under this alternative. Noise impacts during construction phases would be shorter in duration, because the proposed project area would be approximately half. However, they would still warrant mitigation measures similar to those for the project. Noise impacts stated for the project that would be associated with commercial and other non-residential land uses stationary mechanical equipment for commercial buildings, delivery vehicle and loading dock operations, etc.) would be similar for this alternative. Mitigation measures provided for the project would be applicable and would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level (see Mitigation F.3 and F.4). ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.25 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Future baseline traffic noise levels alone generate significant impacts on some roadways surrounding the proposed project site (see Impact F.1), independent of the buildout for the proposed project or this alternative. Cumulative traffic-generated impacts for this alternative would be similar to those identified for the proposed project, necessitating mitigation measures (see Mitigation F.5), except they would be applicable to the reduced development footprint not along Roselle Avenue). Hazards As with the proposed project, development under the Reduced Footprint alternative would require excavation for installation of utilities and other construction activities which could encounter contaminated soil and/or groundwater, exposing worker and the public to hazardous substances. Federal, state, and local regulations require risk assessments and remedial plans should it be found that release of hazardous substances to the environment is likely. Similar to the proposed project, implementation of Phase I Environmental Site Assessments on the development area would be necessary to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Biology The Reduced Footprint alternative would result in fewer biological impacts to wetlands, Swainson’s Hawk and Burrowing Owl than with the proposed project. As with the proposed project, wetlands sustained by current irrigation practices would be eliminated; however, under this alternative, about 1.25 acres, 50 percent less than with the proposed project, would be disturbed. Similar wetland mitigation strategies would still be required of the project applicant as described in Mitigation Measure H.3; however, the impact area would be less. Additionally, as with the proposed project, construction activities could result in a significant impact to the Swainson’s Hawk nesting and foraging areas nearby and on the project site. Potential significant impacts to Swainson’s Hawks would require pre-construction surveys and appropriate compensation for loss of foraging habitat and to avoid disturbing nests; similar mitigation measures are described for the proposed project in Mitigation Measures H.4 and H.5. However, since the area of disturbance under the Reduced Footprint alternative would be less, impacts and corresponding required mitigation measures would be proportionally less. Habitat for Burrowing Owl would also be lost under this alternative, though to a lesser degree than with the proposed project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures H.6.a and H.6.b would reduce impacts to less- than-significant levels. Development of roughly 48 percent of the project site area would result in less significant impacts than with the proposed project. With implementation of the above- described measures, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.26 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Hydrology and Water Quality Future development anticipated under this scenario would create hydrology and water quality impacts similar to those discussed for the proposed project, although to a lesser degree. This Reduced Footprint alternative is assumed to include development of storm drainage systems similar to those described for the proposed project. Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project would apply to this scenario. Therefore, like the proposed project, this scenario would have less-than-significant impacts to hydrology and water quality with implementation of the groundwater quality mitigation measures, as identified in Section IV.I., Hydrology and Water Quality. Geology, Soils and Seismicity As with the proposed project, construction of structures on the project site could be affected by expansive soils and/or settlement. This could result in damage to buildings and other improvements on the project site. Mitigation measures identified for the proposed project (Mitigation Measures J.1 and J.2) would be applicable under this alternative, therefore reducing impacts to less-than-significant levels. Community Services Similar to the proposed project, the demand for police and fire services would increase under this scenario, albeit to a lesser degree as the development area would be smaller than with the proposed project. Under this alternative, demand for police and fire services would not result in the need for expansion of police or fire facilities. This alternative would not include the need to construct a new Modesto Fire Department Station to house an engine and truck company, since development in the northeast portion of the project site is not anticipated. Therefore, police and fire services impacts under this scenario would be considered less than significant. Water Supply Development of the project site under the Reduced Footprint alternative would result in a reduced demand for domestic water. The Modesto 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) accounted for development of mixed uses on the project site as part of population projections to 2025 used in predicting the amount of water that would be necessary to serve the Modesto Water Service Area. Thus, the UWMP accounts for development on the project site under this scenario, and the scenario would not result in new demand for water in excess of that assumed in the adopted UWMP. The Water Supply Assessment prepared for the Tivoli Project noted that the population growth assumptions used in the UWMP assumed a lower residential density than the Tivoli Specific Plan, which resulted in a higher water demand (higher density housing has lower ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.27 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 irrigation water demand). Under the Reduced Footprint alternative, there would be almost 75 percent fewer households than under the Tivoli Specific Plan. Density would also be lower than under the Tivoli Specific Plan but the large reduction in households would reduce overall water use. Thus, the UWMP projections of water demand are applicable to the Reduced Footprint alternative. The UWMP found that new water supplies would be needed in 2010. The City has projects under development to meet this demand. Development on the project site would require construction of one or two new water wells in the project vicinity to alleviate water pressure problems within the City’s distribution system, as for the proposed project. With reduced demand compared to that of the proposed project at full buildout, the Reduced Footprint alternative would not exceed the sustainable yield for Modesto’s share of the groundwater basin supply. Therefore, implementation of this scenario would result in less-than-significant impacts to groundwater levels. Utilities and Services Systems: Wastewater Impacts related to wastewater collection under the Reduced Footprint alternative would be similar to the proposed project. It is assumed that the on-site collection system proposed would be included in the final project design, and that all on-site collection system improvements would be installed by the project developer prior to or concurrent with development of the project. The project applicants would be required to contribute toward their fair share of the required wastewater treatment and disposal facilities for both on-site and off-site, including include increased capacity charges, through payment of future capacity charges, as adopted by the City prior to issuance of a building permit. The project developers are responsible for providing all necessary wastewater facilities that are necessary to serve the site. As a result of construction and implementation of new wastewater facilities, significant impacts to agricultural resources, biological resources, air quality, hazards, water quality, geology, and population would remain as described in Section IV.L, Utilities and Services Systems, of this EIR. Population and Housing Under the Reduced Footprint alternative, the overall 854 new dwelling units would translate to a City of Modesto population increase of about 2,442 new people, about 6,827 fewer than with the proposed project. Unlike with the proposed project, the total proposed number of dwelling units planned anticipated in the Roselle / Claribel CPD for this 234-acre area would be 854 units (based on 5.1 units / acre times 167.5 acres of Village Residential). Therefore, this alternative would be in conformity with anticipated planned residential development in the Roselle / Claribel CPD. Assuming full buildout of this Reduced Footprint alternative by 2012, anticipated population growth would represent about 0.90 percent of the City’s estimated population (268,000) in 2012, ---PAGE BREAK--- VI. Alternatives Turnstone Consulting, T160 VI.28 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 and would represent about 0.77 percent of the City’s estimated population (312,600) in 2017, and 0.61 percent of the City’s estimated population (400,000) in 2025. Based on these percentages, project-related housing would contribute to an increase in Modesto’s population over a 20-year planning horizon but would not cause the City as a whole to exceed its projections. As with the proposed project, an estimated 67 acres of the project site would be designated for Regional Serving Commercial development. An additional 101,850 sq. ft. of commercial and office area would be developed under the Reduced Footprint alternative. Completion of the commercial /office portion of this development would add approximately 1,780 employees to the Modesto workforce. 3 Therefore, total anticipated employment as a result of this scenario would be about 0.58 percent of the total employment projected in the General Plan boundary (304,000) at buildout in 2025. Compared to the proposed project at full buildout, this scenario would contribute fewer (337) employees to the local and regional employment growth over the next 20 years. Similar to the proposed project, this scenario would not induce substantial population or housing growth at the local or regional level that is not already accounted for by the Urban Area General Plan. E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE An EIR is required to identify the environmentally superior alternative from among the range of reasonable alternatives that are evaluated. CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative be designed and states that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the no project alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.” Based on the review of the development alternatives evaluated in this chapter, the Reduced Footprint alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed project due to the decrease in impacts to agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, community services, and population. 3 Estimated employment for Regional Serving Commercial uses is based on a ratio of approximately 545 square feet per employee. This ratio is derived from the Regional Commercial Land Use section of the City’s Final General Plan EIR, which estimates 24 employees per acre, and the proposed project’s Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) for the Regional Serving Commercial site of 0.3. Estimated employment for commercial / office development is based on a ratio of approximately 502 square feet per employee. This ratio is derived from the Business Professional Land Use section of the City of Modesto Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan, which estimates 26 employees per acre and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) on the Business Park site of 0.3. ---PAGE BREAK--- Turnstone Consulting, T160 VII.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 VII. AUTHORS AND PERSONS CONSULTED EIR AUTHORS City of Modesto 1010 Tenth Street Modesto, CA 95353 Community and Economic Development Interim Director: James E. Niskanen Interim Planning Manager: Jay Corey Senior Planner: Paul Liu EIR CONSULTANTS Turnstone Consulting 330 Townsend Street, Suite 216 San Francisco, CA 94107 Project Director: Nancy Cunningham Clark Project Manager: Barbara W. Sahm Deputy Project Manager: Julie Tilley Barlow, AICP Peter Mye William Dietrich S. Elizabeth Haines Michael Kometani Barbara Westree Baseline Environmental Consulting 101 H Street, Suite C Petaluma, CA 94952-5100 (Hydrology, Geology, Air Quality) Senior Hydrogeologist: Bruce Abelli-Amen Geology, Soils, and Seismicity: Ralph E. Russell, Environmental Specialist Civil Engineer James McCarty, P.E. Charles M Salter Associates, Inc. 130 Sutter Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (Noise) Senior Consultant Timothy G. Brown H.T. Harvey & Associates 3150 Almaden Expressway, Suite 145 San Jose, CA 95118 (Biology) Principal-in-Charge: Patrick Boursier, Ph.D. Project Manager: Brian B. Boroski, Ph.D. Assistant Project Manager: Daniel G. Duke, J.D. Botanist: Brian J. Cleary Wildlife Ecologist: John C. Sterling ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Authors and Persons Consulted Turnstone Consulting, T160 VII.2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Dowling and Associates 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 (Transportation) Vice President: John Dowden Associate: Michael Carroll Sixth Street Studio 231 Sixth Street San Francisco, CA 94107 (Graphics) Valerie Reichert PROJECT SPONSORS David Romano 1020 10th Street, Suite 320 Modesto, CA 95354 HA Development 1030 Country Club Drive Suite E Moraga, CA 94556 PERSONS CONSULTED Jim Alves, Assistant Civil Engineer, Modesto Public Works Department Jeff Barnes, Traffic Engineer, Modesto Public Works Department Alison Barratt-Green, Esq., Senior Deputy Attorney, City of Modesto, City Attorney’s Office Jack Bond, Senior Civil Engineer, Modesto Public Works Department Joel Broumas, Captain, Modesto Police Department Doug Critchfield, Parks Planning and Development Manager, Parks Recreation and Neighborhood Department Vicky Dion, Senior Civil Engineer, Modesto Public Works Department Fosi, Administrative Analyst II, Modesto Public Works Department Violet Jakab, Senior Civil Engineer, Modesto Public Works Department Rob Jackson, Lieutenant, Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department Rick Jarvis, Jarvis, Fay & Doporto, LLP Lyn Jordan, Associate Civil Engineer, Modesto Community and Economic Department Patrick Kelly, Principal Planner, Modesto Community and Economic Department ---PAGE BREAK--- VII. Authors and Persons Consulted Turnstone Consulting, T160 VII.3 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Final EIR – Volume I February 26, 2008 Bill Ketscher, Irrigation Engineer, Modesto Irrigation District Steve Mayotte, Chief, Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District Becky Meredith, Modesto City Schools Planning and Research Department James Miguel, Chief, Modesto Fire Department Mark Murphy, Associate Traffic Engineer, Modesto Public Works Department Nicholas Pinhey, Director, Modesto Public Works Department Jennifer Pratt, Assistant Civil Engineer, Modesto Public Works Department John Rivera, Environmental Compliance Supervisor, Modesto Public Works Department Richard Ulm, Deputy Director, Modesto Public Works Department Firoz Vohra, Deputy Director, Modesto Public Works Department Helen Wang, Transportation Planner, Modesto Public Works Department Dan Wilkowsky, Deputy Director, Modesto Public Works Department William Wong, Assistant Civil Engineer, Modesto Public Works Department ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A: NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND INITIAL STUDY ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF MODESTO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Project Title: Tivoli Specific Plan Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Modesto Community and Economic Development Department 1010 Tenth Street, Suite 3300 Modesto, CA 95354 Contact Person and Phone Number: Paul Liu Associate Planner (209) 577-5282 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Tivoli Specific Plan Project Owner Representative: David Romano 1020 10th Street, Suite 310 Modesto, CA 95354 Brief Description of the Proposed Action: (Full Project Description Below) The proposed project includes consideration and adoption of the 454- acre Tivoli Specific Plan; General Plan land use and circulation diagram, and residential density amendments; prezoning to Specific Plan Overlay; annexation into the Modesto city limits; creation of a Facilities Master Plan and Finance Plan; formation of a Community Facilities District; development agreement; and subsequent entitlements, including abandonment of a portion of Mable Avenue, approval of Tentative Maps, approval of Conditional Use Permits / Final Development Plans and other City application approvals. Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required: City of Modesto Stanislaus County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Turnstone Consulting 1 Tivoli Specific Plan Project For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 2 Tivoli Specific Plan Project INTRODUCTION The proposed project provides for the consideration and adoption of a Specific Plan to act as a guide for the future mixed-use development of a 454-acre area known as the Tivoli Specific Plan. The Tivoli Specific Plan would include 3,193 residential dwelling units, 14 acres of neighborhood-serving commercial, 5.7 acres of commercial, 68.8 acres of regional-serving commercial, 2.4 acres of professional office space, an elementary school site, about 30.3 acres of parks and open space, and about 30.9 acres of interior collector roadways within the Specific Plan area. The project also includes provisions to improve existing traffic and circulation conditions, with construction of new arterial and collector streets for better vehicular circulation and linkages to the existing circulation system and transit services. Consideration and adoption of the Tivoli Specific Plan also includes consideration of the following actions: a General Plan Amendment for a portion of the project site from Village Residential (VR) to Regional Commercial (RC); a General Plan Amendment to reclassify Claratina Avenue from a four-lane Class B Expressway to a six-lane Principal Arterial from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue; a General Plan Amendment to exceed the minimum recommended density of 5.1 units per gross acre; prezoning of the project site to a Specific Plan Overlay; annexation of the project site into the Modesto city limits; creation of a Facilities Master Plan and a Finance Plan; formation of a Community Facilities District; development agreement; and subsequent entitlements, including abandonment of a portion of Mable Avenue, approval of Tentative Maps, approval of Conditional Use Permits / Final Development Plans, and other City application approvals. The Tivoli Specific Plan would be implemented in phases, with anticipated commencement in 2006 and buildout by approximately 2011. PROJECT LOCATION The proposed project site is a 454-acre area located in an unincorporated area of Stanislaus County, adjacent to the northeastern boundary of the City of Modesto, in the central San Joaquin Valley. Stanislaus County is bounded by San Joaquin County to the north, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa Counties to the east, Merced County to the south, and Santa Clara and Alameda Counties to the west. (See Figure 1: Project Location.) The project site is located within Modesto’s Sphere of Influence. Modesto is located approximately 30 miles southeast of Stockton, 70 miles south of Sacramento, and 80 miles east of Oakland. Nearby Central Valley communities include Salida, Ripon, and Manteca to the northwest, Riverbank to north, and Ceres, Turlock, and Merced to the south. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION Miles 0 10 5 5 5 205 580 J3 J7 J6 J9 J9 J9 J2 J4 J16 J16 J14 33 132 99 165 106 108 120 4 4 26 88 120 120 84 4 4 199 219 A R T N O C T S O C A .O C A D E M A L A . O C A D E M A L A . O C . O C N I U Q A O J N A S . O C N I U Q A O J N A S T S . O C S U A L S I N A . O C N I U Q A O J N A S T S . O C S U A L S I N A A D E M A L A . O C T N A S A A R A L C . O C N PROJECT SITE STOCKTON MODESTO BRENTWOOD PLEASANTON TRACY MILNES RD PLAINVIEW RD SYLVAN AV WARNERVILLE RD YOSEMITE RD HATCH RD HUGHSON AV WEST MAIN ST KEYES RD BRADBURY MARSHALL RD AUGUST RD WILLIAMS AV KIERNAN AV MAZE BL PARADISE RD SHOEMAKE AV D R S U A L C D R E L A D K A O R N E H C M Y D R D R R E T N E P R A C D R S G N I N N E J RI VE R R D YOSEMITE AV LONE TREE RD DODDS RD S W O R C G N I D N A L D R L A R T N E C AV KA SS ON RD D E L P L E N TO CAN Y ON R D MINE S RD SOURCE: City of Modesto, Turnstone Consulting Feet 0 2000 N SONOR A RD STANISLAUS CO CALAVERAS CO MILTON RD 2) 6 % T I V O L I S P E C I F I C P L A N 99 7%3 / % LITT ROAD CLAUS ROAD #(52#( 342%%4 45,,9 2/!$ 02/*%#4 3)4% Legend ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 4 Tivoli Specific Plan Project The project site is located about four miles northeast of Modesto’s downtown core. Highway 99 is located six miles to the west. Kiernan Avenue (State Route 219) is one mile to the north. The site is bounded by the planned Claratina Avenue on the north,1 Oakdale Road on the west, Sylvan Avenue on the south, and Roselle Avenue on the east. EXISTING CONDITIONS The project site totals approximately 454 acres, contains 86 separate parcels, and is within the City of Modesto’s proposed Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District. The Comprehensive Planning District is planned to provide 1,700 acres of new business park and residential uses in the vicinity bounded by Claribel Avenue, Oakdale Road, Sylvan Avenue, and the Santa Fe railroad line. The Tivoli Specific Plan area represents about 25 percent of the proposed Comprehensive Planning District’s total area. The Tivoli Specific Plan area is identified in this document as the “project site.” Land use designation for the Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District is planned for “Village Residential” and “Business Park” development. This area is intended to provide development of residential uses in the vicinity of Claribel Road, Oakdale Road, and Sylvan Avenue, and business park uses along the Santa Fe railroad line. The land use designation in the Comprehensive Planning District for the project site is Village Residential. The vicinity of the proposed project site contains a mix of mostly agricultural and residential uses with some commercial/office uses. To the north are agricultural parcels with some individual home sites. To the west are single-family residential neighborhoods and agricultural uses, the Northeast Modesto Police Substation, County offices, and a commercial development at the northwest corner of the Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue intersection. To the south and a portion of the east is the 1,850-acre Village One Specific Plan area, which mostly is developed with residential uses and limited commercial uses. Enochs High School is currently under construction within the Village One area and a community park is planned just east of the high school. A limited portion of the Village One Specific Plan area is in agricultural production or vacant. Commercial and office buildings and a post office are also located to the south across Sylvan Avenue. Most of the area east of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area lies within the planned Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District. This area is currently in agricultural operation with some individual home sites. Future designated land uses include residential and business park. Present land uses on the project site primarily include agricultural production, single-family residences, and some commercial/office space. Row crops and fallow fields make up the 1 Claratina Avenue has not been constructed east of Coffee Road. It is a designated future extension for a Class B Expressway in the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan. A street name change from Claratina Avenue to Pelandale Avenue may be considered at a future time. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 5 Tivoli Specific Plan Project majority of the agricultural use throughout the north and central portions, with some orchards planted in the northwest corner of the site. Existing single-family residential neighborhoods make up the west-central portion along Mable Avenue and Lydia Lane, the south-central portion along Jeffrey Drive, and the south-eastern portion along McReynolds Avenue. There are additional stand-alone homesites with access along Roselle Avenue. An existing commercial/office center is located in the southwest corner of the site at the northeast corner of the Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue intersection. East of the commercial center along Sylvan is a church and private recreational center. Further east on Sylvan Avenue at McReynolds Avenue is a commercial/light industrial building owned by Pacific Bell. A 4.2-acre water storage tank reservoir area owned and operated by the City of Modesto is located in the center of the Specific Plan area and would remain under the proposed project. There is also a series of three microwave towers in the southwestern portion of the Specific Plan area, east of Lydia Lane. PROPOSED PROJECT The proposed project includes the following components: consideration and adoption of the Tivoli Specific Plan; a General Plan Amendment for a portion of the project site from Village Residential (VR) to Regional Commercial (RC); a General Plan Amendment to reclassify Claratina Avenue from a four-lane Class B Expressway to a six-lane Principal Arterial from Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue; a General Plan Amendment to exceed the minimum recommended density of 5.1 units per gross acre; prezoning of the project site to a Specific Plan Overlay; annexation of the project site into the Modesto city limits; creation of a Facilities Master Plan and a Finance Plan; formation of a Community Facilities District; development agreement; and subsequent entitlements, including abandonment of a portion of Mable Avenue, approval of Tentative Maps, approval of Conditional Use Permits / Final Development Plans, and other City application approvals. Tivoli Specific Plan - Land Use Designations The Specific Plan area includes the following development components: residential, commercial, office, potential school site, community park areas, and construction and extension of necessary public infrastructure streets, sewers, water, storm drainage, electricity, gas, and telecommunications). The development components are described separately, below, and shown on Figure 2: Conceptual Land Use Diagram. The Tivoli Specific Plan would include prezoning of the site to a Specific Plan Overlay zone with residential, commercial, and office as underlying uses, and annexation of the site into the City of Modesto limits. A Facilities Master Plan and a Finance Plan are also proposed for the site. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL LAND USE DIAGRAM 0 800 FEET . T I V O L I S P E C I F I C P L A N P R O J E C T SOURCE: Dahlin Group, Turnstone Consulting $5 # # # # 342%%43#!0% 2/5.$ !"/54 05",)# ).&2!3425#452% 4%3 23# 0/ 6,$2 %6,$2 6,$2 6,$2 23# # %6,$2 %6,$2 OAKDALE AVENUE CLARATINA AVENUE SYLVAN AVENUE 02/0/3%$ "53 452. ROSELLE AVENUE MC REYNOLDS AVENUE ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 7 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Very Low Density Residential Existing Very Low Density Residential (EVLDR) land use in the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area is defined as having one to three dwelling units per acre. There are about 22.7 acres with 48 dwelling units along Mable Avenue, Lydia Lane, and Jeffrey Drive, which would remain as part of the development of the Specific Plan. These areas would be designated as EVLDR land use. An additional 10.0 acres of Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) land use is proposed in the vicinity of Mable Avenue, for up to 30 new dwelling units. Low Density Residential Low Density Residential (LDR) land use in the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area is defined as having four to eight dwelling units per acre. Nearly 165.2 acres, containing up to 1,322 dwelling units, of LDR land use is proposed in the Specific Plan area. Most residential development at this density would occur in the southern and south-central portions of the Specific Plan area. Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential (MDR) is proposed as a residential land use containing between 8 and 18 dwelling units per acre. About 46.3 acres of MDR land use is planned, with a total maximum of about 833 MDR dwelling units. High Density Residential High Density Residential (HDR) is proposed for residential acres containing between 18 and 24 dwelling units per acre. About 40 acres of HDR land use is proposed in the Specific Plan area, containing up to 960 multi-family, apartment-style housing units along the planned Claratina Avenue, along Roselle Avenue, and in the east-central portion of the proposed Specific Plan area. Neighborhood Commercial Land allocated for local neighborhood-based commercial development is proposed in the Specific Plan area under the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) land use designation. An existing 3.5-acre neighborhood-based commercial development is in the southwestern corner of the project site, at the intersection of Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue, and would be designated NC under the Specific Plan. Two additional NC areas totaling 10.5 acres are proposed along Roselle Avenue. Allowable floor area ratio in the NC district is proposed to be .30 square feet for every square foot of lot area. Commercial The Commercial land use designation is proposed in the Specific Plan area for neighborhood- based commercial development. About 5.7 acres of land designated is proposed along Oakdale Road, north of the existing shopping center at Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 8 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Allowable floor area ratio in the C district is proposed to be .30 square feet for every square foot of lot area. Regional-Serving Commercial The Regional-Serving Commercial (RSC) land use designation in the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area would function as a community-serving commercial center. About 46.5 acres of RSC-1 designated development is proposed in the northwest corner at the intersection of Oakdale Road and planned Claratina Avenue, and about 22.3 of RSC-2 designated development along Oakdale Road south of Mable Avenue. Allowable floor area ratio in the RSC district is proposed to be .30 square feet per every square foot of lot area. This would yield an estimated maximum of approximately 600,000 square feet of building area in RSC-1 and approximately 290,000 square feet of building area in RSC-2 for regional commercial type uses. Professional Office A 2.4-acre area along Oakdale Road is proposed to have a Professional Office (PO) land use designation. This area would be reserved for potential professional office space development as the Tivoli Specific Plan builds out and matures. School A 13.5-acre elementary school site is designated in the northeastern portion of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area. Parks and Open Space The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan designates about 30.3 acres of parks and open space land use. A 19.0-acre dual-use basin park is proposed in the central portion of the proposed Specific Plan area. Of that 19.0-acre dual-use basin park, at least 9 acres would be designated park area and the remaining acreage would be a water basin containment area. Over 11.3 acres of linear parkway (paseo) are also proposed along several interior collector roadways within the Specific Plan area; this paseo area is open space, but would not be included as park land in the City of Modesto. Circulation Direct access to the Tivoli Specific Plan area would be available in the future from the extension of the Claratina Avenue Expressway which parallels the northern boundary. The project includes a General Plan Amendment to reclassify the portion of Claratina Avenue between Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue from a four-lane Class B Expressway to a six-lane Principal Arterial. This roadway is anticipated to be constructed by the year 2006. Oakdale Road along the west, Sylvan Avenue along the south, and Roselle Avenue along the east currently provide vehicular access to the site and would continue to do so under Specific Plan conditions. Collector and local residential streets would be constructed within the Specific Plan area to provide ingress and For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 9 Tivoli Specific Plan Project egress to the various development components. This interior roadway network would total about 30.9 acres. In addition, non-motorized facilities, such as Class I bike paths and Class II bike lanes and pedestrian paths, would be constructed along Claratina, Oakdale, Sylvan, and Roselle Avenues, as well as through the project site, in accordance with the Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan. Various points of ingress and egress are proposed for the project area. Two points are planned along Oakdale Road. The existing point of ingress and egress onto Mable Avenue from Oakdale Road would be modified to the Regional Commercial area RSC-1 as shown on Figure 2: Conceptual Land Use Diagram. A new primary access to this developed area from Oakdale Road would be constructed via a proposed interior collector street. Two points of ingress and egress are proposed along Claratina Avenue and two are planned along Roselle Avenue. The three points of ingress and egress along Sylvan Avenue at McReynolds Avenue, Lydia Lane and Jeffrey Drive would remain, and two additional points of access would be constructed connecting with Wood Sorrel Drive and Aria Way to the south, bringing the total along Sylvan Avenue to five. Individual commercial (RSC, NC, and C) projects may have their own access points to these perimeter arterial streets. Analysis and approval of these access points will occur as part of the traffic study, site access study, and plan review for each of these projects. Roundabouts are proposed internally within the Specific Plan area as well as along Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue. The existing right-of-way along the south side of Sylvan Avenue is mostly established with the development within Village One. The roundabouts will need to be pushed a little to the north and require extra right-of-way at the intersections. Traffic control devices required along Claratina Avenue will be determined by the traffic study and site access study as reviewed by the City of Modesto Traffic Engineering Division. Utilities and Infrastructure Existing water, sewer, electric, gas, and communications lines traverse the proposed 454-acre Specific Plan area. The proposed Specific Plan development would tie into some of these facilities, and would also require new construction and upgrade. The existing Sonoma Trunk sewer line stubs out south of the project site at Sylvan Avenue and a new sewer line would be extended north through the project site. New water and storm drainage facilities are needed to serve the project. Additional proposed facilities would follow new road alignments and are planned as part of the project. Roads and utility infrastructure would be constructed, dedicated, and easements granted (where necessary) consistent with applicable standards and requirements. Facilities Master Plan, Finance Plan, and Community Facilities District The proposed project also includes a Facilities Master Plan, Finance Plan, and Community Facilities District. The Facilities Master Plan provides a detailed analysis and description of the public facilities required to serve the Specific Plan. The Finance Plan provides the basis for the For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 11 Tivoli Specific Plan Project EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion a-b) There are no identified scenic vistas or scenic resources on or within the vicinity of the project site. Adoption of the Tivoli Specific Plan would not impact scenic views from public open spaces or other sites accessible to the general public, nor substantially damage scenic resources. Therefore, this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. c) Construction of the proposed project would occur on 454 acres of land currently in agricultural production and with areas of residential, commercial, and institutional types of uses. All existing agricultural fields and orchards and portions of the existing development would be removed for construction of new buildings and services, which would alter the site’s existing visual character. The change in visual character from primarily agricultural uses with some areas of development to buildings for primarily residential and commercial uses is a potentially significant impact that will be discussed in the EIR. d) The project would introduce exterior lighting for the proposed buildings, roadways, parking lots, and parks. The EIR will discuss the potential for substantial and adverse light and glare associated with lighting on the project site. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 12 Tivoli Specific Plan Project II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion a) Lands in the Tivoli Specific Plan project area have been in agricultural production since the early 1900s. According to maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,2 the project site includes lands classified as Prime Farmland (generally in the central to southern and western portions of the site), and farmland of Statewide Importance (in the central to northern and eastern portion of the site). The project site also contains Urban and Built-up Land (the existing commercial development at the southwest corner of the project site, the existing Jeffrey Drive residential development off of Sylvan Avenue, and existing residences along the south side of Mable Avenue). Most of the northern and eastern portions of the project site are classified as Farmland of Local Importance by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Development of the Tivoli Specific Plan would convert Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, 2 Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 1984-2002 TIME SERIES maps, Modesto area, Stanislaus County, accessed February 14, 2005, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp/time_series_img/modesto.htm. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 13 Tivoli Specific Plan Project and Farmland of Local Importance to non-agricultural use. This is a potentially significant impact that will be discussed in the EIR. b) With the exception of two parcels3 in the southwestern portion of the project site and a City of Modesto parcel,4 all properties in the Tivoli Specific Plan project area are currently zoned A-2-10-UT (General Agriculture) under the Stanislaus County zoning ordinance. The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan is located in an area designated as Urban Transition. The purpose of the Urban Transition designation is to ensure that land remains in agricultural usage until urban development consistent with a city’s (or unincorporated community’s) general plan designation is approved. The Urban Transition designation is appropriate for undeveloped land located within a city or town’s sphere of influence.5 Development of the lands within the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan project area is consistent with the City of Modesto’s long-range growth plan. Properties in the Tivoli Specific Plan project area would retain their existing zoning until they are annexed by the City of Modesto, at which point County zoning ceases to apply. The topic of zoning will be discussed further in the EIR. In addition, areas of land on the Tivoli Specific Plan project site are subject to the California Land Conservation Act, also known as the Williamson Act, contracts. The Williamson Act is an agriculture land protection program established in the mid-1960s. Over a dozen parcels in the project area, totaling about 285 acres, are under Williamson Act protection. Designation for 12 of those parcels was protested by the City of Modesto throughout the late 1970s and into the early 1990s; LAFCO upheld the City’s protest. These contracts are active until the properties are annexed, at which time the contracts would be voided. One remaining ten-acre parcel was not protested and would remain under Williamson Act conservation after annexation. Since the proposed project would allow for the development of the project site, the EIR will discuss the topic of agricultural land conservation. c) The area north of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area lies within the planned Roselle- Claribel Comprehensive Planning District and is currently in agricultural operation with some individual home sites. The land is zoned A-2-10-UT (General Agriculture) under the Stanislaus County zoning ordinance. The future designated land use is residential. Most of the area east of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area also lies within the planned Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District. This area is currently in agricultural operation with some individual home sites. Future designated land uses include business park and areas for future residences. Prime Farmland soils consistent with the makeup of the western portion of the project site occur in the lands north and west of the Claratina Avenue / Oakdale Road intersection, outside of the planned Roselle- Claribel Comprehensive Planning District. 3 APN Parcels #083-005-016 and #083-005-019 are zoned Planned Development (P-D) under the Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance. 4 A City of Modesto water tank is located on this 5-acre parcel located roughly in the center of the project site and is considered City of Modesto land. 5 Stanislaus County General Plan, 1994, p. I-25. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 14 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Development of the Tivoli Specific Plan may spur growth within the boundaries of the Roselle-Claribel CPD and may have a “colonizing” or “anchor” effect, spurring further development of agricultural lands in the area. While surrounding development would be consistent with the goals and policies of the Roselle-Claribel CPD, future Specific Plans, and the City of Modesto’s growth plan, it could have a potentially significant impact in terms of converting Prime Farmland in the project area to non-agricultural use. Therefore, the topic of Prime Farmland conversion in the general area of the project will be discussed in the EIR. III. AIR QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion a-d) The proposed project is located in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and is under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (APCD). The APCD regulates air quality through its permit authority and through its planning and review activities that cover most types of stationary emission sources. The APCD is responsible for implementing emission controls and other requirements. The primary pollutants for which the air basin is a non-attainment area are ozone and suspended particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter. Operation of the proposed project For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 15 Tivoli Specific Plan Project would result in criteria air pollutant emissions from project-related motor vehicle trips, and land-use-based sources such as natural gas. The EIR will discuss the project’s potential effects on air quality and the potential for exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutants. e) The project includes construction of a residential and commercial development. It would not operate under conditions or with any large volumes of chemicals that could create objectionable odors in the site vicinity. For informational purposes, however, this topic will be discussed further in the EIR. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 16 Tivoli Specific Plan Project (continued) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion a) A biological study will be prepared as a background study for the EIR analysis. The report will identify any candidate, sensitive, and special status species and areas of sensitive natural communities, and the EIR will analyze how project development may impact habitat for these species. b) The project site is about 2.5 miles from the Stanislaus River, 15 miles from the San Joaquin River and 4 miles from the Tuolumne River.6 The project is not within one of the areas surrounding a riparian corridor that the City of Modesto has defined as a potential biological resource area.7 The topic of riparian habitats or sensitive communities will not be discussed further in the EIR. c) There are no known natural or artificial water bodies or watercourses on site, nor are they depicted on the Salida USGS 7.5’ quadrangle or National Wetland Inventory maps. No obvious sustainable hydrology is apparent on the site. A biological site survey will determine whether there are any natural or artificial water bodies. Should any such body of water be observed, the EIR will analyze the project’s potential impacts on protected wetland habitat. If no such bodies of water are observed, it will be concluded in the EIR that there are no federally protected wetlands on the site. d) The agricultural habitats, homesteads, and commercial areas of the project site may provide habitat for migrating birds. Development of the project site may result in significant impacts to wildlife migration patterns. Therefore, the topic of migration will be discussed in the EIR. 6 USGS 7.5’ Quad Maps: Ripon (1994), Riverbank (1987), and Salida (1987). 7 City of Modesto Community and Economic Development Department, Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan (hereinafter “Final Master EIR”), certified March 2003, p. V-7-19. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 17 Tivoli Specific Plan Project e) For proposed development in the Planned Urbanizing Area, the City of Modesto requires a site-specific survey by a qualified biologist to determine whether any sensitive natural communities, habitat, or species are present within the proposed development area.8 The proposed Biological Study will analyze the presence of sensitive natural communities, habitat, or species for discussion in the EIR. f) The project site is not included in any known local, regional, or state conservation or habitat conservation plan. Therefore, this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion The Central California Information Center (CCIC) conducted a record search for the project area.9 The search included a review of maps for the specific project area and the immediate vicinity of the project area, and review of the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Inventory of Historic Resources (1976), the California Historical Landmarks (1990), the California Points of Historical Interest listing (May 1992 and updates), the Historic Property Data File (Office of Historic Preservation current computer list, December 2004), the Caltrans State and Local Bridge Survey (1989 and updates), the Survey of Surveys (1989), GLO Plats, and other pertinent historic data available at the CCIC for each specific county. The results of the search are included in the discussion below. 8 Final Master EIR, p. V-7-19. 9 Central California Information Center (CCIC), California Historical Resources Information System. CCIC File # 5602N, January 2005. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 18 Tivoli Specific Plan Project a) Historic resources in the City of Modesto generally include structures and deposits relating to historic development of the area, beginning in the late 1800s with the establishment of the City. There are a number of historic cultural resources in the Modesto area listed on the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, California Historical Landmarks, the California Points of Historical Interest, and the City of Modesto Landmark Preservation list. The Tivoli Specific Plan project area encompasses 454 areas. The project area is legally divided into 86 parcels, 51 of which are individual residences with the remainder being undeveloped and ranging in size from 1.65 acres to 80 acres (only 5 parcels exceed 20 acres). The project area can be characterized as low-density residential with existing vegetation consisting mostly of orchard tree row crops, fallow agricultural fields (grasses), grazing grassland and meadows, random native and non-native tree groves and stands of brush, and ornamental landscape areas associated with existing development found both in and around the site.10 None of the buildings currently in the Tivoli Specific Plan project area are currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places,11 the California Register of Historical Resources,12 the City of Modesto designated Landmark Preservation Sites list,13 or the other resources searched by the CCIC.14 The Cultural Resources section of the Tivoli Specific Plan would conform to the Planned Urbanizing Area policies for cultural resources outlined in the Urban Area General Plan. These policies require evaluation of historical significance for any proposed demolition or alteration of structures or areas of historical significance over 45 years old, or when construction is proposed within 100 feet of said structure or area. The City could then require measures to preserve all structures and places deemed historically significant.15 Therefore, the topic of cultural resources would be less than significant and will not be further addressed in the EIR. b, d) Information on prehistoric cultural resources in the Modesto planning area is limited as a result of development and limited archaeological research.16 No archaeological resources on the site or in the vicinity have been reported to the CCIC.17 There is evidence of irrigation ditches and/or abandoned Modesto Irrigation District laterals in the project area.18 Agricultural use and grazing tend to erase evidence of cultural resources.19 The proposed project would require excavation and the removal of existing top soil. Safeguards from the Urban Area General Plan would be incorporated into the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan to protect any archaeological resources. The Urban Area General Plan policy states that in the event that construction activities involve discovery of buried archaeological deposits, the project sponsor would temporarily halt activities in the 10 Dahlin Group, Tivoli Specific Plan, Project Description (Notice of Project), (hereinafter “Project Description (Notice of Project)”), December 17, 2004, p. 7. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Final Master EIR, pp. V-8-7 to V-8-8. 14 CCIC File # 5602N. 15 Urban Area General Plan, pp. VII-9-12. 16 Final Master EIR, p. V-8-4. 17 CCIC File # 5602N. 18 Ibid. 19 Final Master EIR, p. V-8-4. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 19 Tivoli Specific Plan Project vicinity, notify the City of Modesto of the discovery, and consult a qualified archaeologist to assess the resource and provide proper mitigation recommendations. If human remains are discovered, the project sponsors would immediately contact the Stanislaus County Coroner’s Office, who would contact the Native American Heritage Commission to notify the appropriate closest descendant. Possible recommendations for important resources or human remains include resource avoidance or data recovery excavations. Given these procedural safeguards proposed as part of the project, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in archaeological resources or human remains. Therefore, the topic of archaeological resources will not be addressed further in the EIR. c) There are no unique geological features visible on the project site. No unique paleontological resources are known to exist within the site. The site has been tilled and otherwise disturbed for nearly 100 years; any paleontological resources near the surface would have been discovered or disturbed during the period of agricultural use. Implementation of the proposed project would not likely unearth and/or directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or a unique geologic feature. Therefore, the topic of paleontological resources and unique geologic features will not be discussed further in the EIR. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 20 Tivoli Specific Plan Project (continued) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion A Preliminary Geotechnical Comment for the Proposed Vintner’s Square Commercial Center has been prepared by Kleinfelder, Inc. of Modesto, CA, for the RSC-1 site (previously referred to as the Vintner’s Square regional shopping center).20 Additional background resources include a Soil Borings and Percolation Testing - Proposed Storm Basins - Future Roselle Neighborhood Development - Modesto, California21 report completed by Kleinfelder, Inc. for the RSC-1 site, and an Existing Soils and Seismicity Map developed by O’Dell Engineering.22 The Kleinfelder, Inc. reports are on file with the City of Modesto Community and Economic Development Department and contain site-specific information on the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions and percolation characteristics. For the purposes of this Initial Study, the findings and recommendations of the Kleinfelder reports and the map provided by O’Dell Engineering form the foundation of the preliminary analysis. a) i) The site is not within a designated Earthquake Fault Zone as defined by the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act of 1972, which regulates development near active faults for the purpose of preventing surface fault rupture hazards to structures for 20 Kleinfelder, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Comments - Proposed Vintner’s Square Commercial Center – Modesto, California, April 1, 2005. 21 Kleinfelder, Inc., Soil Borings and Percolation Testing - Proposed Storm Basins – Future Roselle Neighborhood Development – Modesto, California, September 2004. 22 Roselle Neighborhood Specific Plan, Project Description (Notice of Project), December 2004. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 21 Tivoli Specific Plan Project human occupancy.23 Major known or active faults have not been mapped as passing through or adjacent to the site. The project site is located in a Seismic Zone 3 and the nearest earthquake fault zone (San Joaquin Fault) is approximately 16 miles south and west of the project site.24 The potential for fault ground rupture and fault creep hazards is expected to be very low. Therefore, the topic of fault rupture will not be addressed further in the EIR. a) ii) The 1998 California Building Code states that there are no areas in California where seismic hazards can be considered non-existent.25 Accordingly, moderate ground shaking from earthquakes originating on nearby faults would likely be felt on or near the proposed project site. All structures would be designed in accordance with the California Building Code to accommodate moderate earthquake shaking.26 Therefore, the topic of seismic ground shaking will not be addressed further in the EIR. a) iii) Liquefaction results from loss of soil strength during a seismic event. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is clean, loose, saturated, and uniformly graded fine-grained sand. Borings of subsurface soils collected from the site generally consist of sandy clay; sandy and clayey silt; silty, clayey sand; silty sand; sandy silt; and relatively clean sand.27 The project site is located in an area that can be generally characterized as having soils deposited in low alluvial terrace and moderately old fan formations.28 Test borings also indicated groundwater levels ranging from 33.5 to 34.5 feet below the ground surface.29 Based on these soil conditions and groundwater levels, risk of liquefaction at the site is low. Therefore, the topic of seismic-related ground failure will not be addressed further in the EIR. a) iv) Landslides can occur under a variety of conditions, but they commonly involve sloping ground. The site and vicinity are nearly flat.30 Therefore, the site is not susceptible to landslides. The topic of landslides will not be addressed further in the EIR. b) According to the Soil Conservation Service, the on-site soils are considered to be only prone to erosion hazard in their natural state.31 However, the surface soils at the site have been repeatedly tilled for agricultural uses and grazing, which would make 23 California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Home Page, Table 4-Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, May 1, 1999, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/affected.htm (accessed January 31, 2005). 24 Roselle Neighborhood Specific Plan, Project Description (Notice of Project), Existing Soils and Seismicity Map, December 2004. 25 California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Home Page, Table 4-Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, May 1, 1999, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/affected.htm (accessed January 31, 2005). 26 1998 California Building Code, Chapter 16, Division IV. 27 Kleinfelder, Inc., Soil Borings and Percolation Testing - Proposed Storm Basins - Future Roselle Neighborhood Development - Modesto, California, September 2004, p. 2. 28 Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the California Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Survey, Eastern Stanislaus Area California, p. 4-7 and Sheet 23, September 1964. 29 Kleinfelder, Inc., Soil Borings and Percolation Testing - Proposed Storm Basins - Future Roselle Neighborhood Development - Modesto, California, September 2004, p. 2. 30 Roselle Neighborhood Specific Plan, Project Description (Notice of Project), December 2004, p. 6. 31 Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the California Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Survey, Eastern Stanislaus Area California, Table 2, Description of the Soils of Eastern Stanislaus Area, pp. 33-62, September 1964. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 22 Tivoli Specific Plan Project them more susceptible to erosion than undisturbed soil, if not protected.32 The proposed site development would involve construction of numerous commercial and residential buildings with paved parking and circulation areas. Section 16 of the City of Modesto’s 2001 Standard and Specifications provides technical requirements for developing and implementing erosion control measures.33 These measures would be required of the project and would reduce the potential for soil erosion at the site to a less-than-significant level. The topic of soil erosion will not be addressed further in the EIR. c) The Preliminary Geotechnical Comments34 prepared by Kleinfelder for the RSC-1 site shows that the underlying soils are not unstable and would not become unstable as a result of the project. Landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction and collapse are not present hazards at this site. Geotechnical engineering investigation reports will be needed for the remainder of the Specific Plan site. The EIR will discuss site preparation and construction recommendations to be provided in the future geotechnical engineering investigation reports. d) Some expansive clay soils are present on the site.35 The EIR will analyze any substantial risks from expansive soils on site and discuss recommendations described in the future geotechnical engineering investigation reports. e) The project site is currently not served by City of Modesto sanitary sewers. Sanitary waste from existing uses is currently treated in individual on-site septic systems. The proposed new development would be served through a new City of Modesto wastewater conveyance system constructed as part of the project. Per City policy Sections 5-6.302 and 5-6.301, existing buildings served by septic tanks shall connect to the city sewer system within five years after the sewer lateral is located within 100 feet of the property. All existing septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be removed from the project site at that time. Therefore, the topic of soil capability to support septic tanks will not be discussed in the EIR. 32 Roselle Neighborhood Specific Plan, Project Description (Notice of Project), December 2004, pp. 4-5. 33 City of Modesto, 2001 Standards and Specifications, Erosion & Sediment Control and Standards for Construction Activities, pp. Design 16-1 - Design 16-3. 34 Kleinfelder, Inc., Preliminary Geotechnical Comments - Proposed Vintner’s Square Commercial Center – Modesto, California, April 1, 2005. 35 Ibid. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 23 Tivoli Specific Plan Project VII. HAZARDS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 24 Tivoli Specific Plan Project (continued) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion a, b) The proposed project is a residential and commercial project. It would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, no significant impact would occur as a result of the project and the EIR will not discuss this topic further. c) The project would include possible construction of a middle school in the central portion of the 454-acre site. The residential and commercial projects, however, would not result in hazardous emissions, nor would any proposed new uses be expected to involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, no significant impact would occur as a result of the project and the EIR will not discuss this topic further. d) A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) has been completed for the RSC-1 site.36 The ESA found no regulatory records of any known hazardous materials sites, including sites listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, within a 1-mile radius of the site. The ESA found that the RSC-1 property has been used for many years for agricultural production. ESAs have not yet been completed for the remainder of the Tivoli site but it is likely that the property surrounding the RSC-1 parcel will also be shown to have been used for agricultural production for many years, as it is presently in agriculture use. Residues of agricultural chemicals, such as herbicides and pesticides, commonly remain in the soil of agricultural sites for several years following termination of agricultural activity. The exact identification of chemical residues can only be determined by chemical analysis of soil samples. Additional research, sampling, identification of chemicals present, and preparation of mitigation plans will occur throughout the preparation of the EIR. Therefore, the topic of hazardous materials on site will be discussed further in the EIR. e) The project site is located over 6 miles from the Modesto City – County Airport (Harry Sham Field), the nearest public airport, and is not included in the Stanislaus County 36 Phase One Inc., Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for APN 083-03-04, Stanislaus County, California 95357, March 2005. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 25 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Airport Land Use Plan. The topic of hazards and public airports will not be addressed in the EIR. f) The project site is located over 9 miles from the Yandell Ranch Airport, the nearest private airport, and would not be affected by activities at this airport. The topic of hazards and private airports will not be addressed in the EIR. g) Development of the Tivoli Specific Plan area would result in residential, commercial, and office uses. These uses would not use unusual types or amounts of hazardous materials or generate unusual amounts of hazardous waste. New roads in the Specific Plan area would be designed to City specifications, accommodating emergency response vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances. Implementation of the Specific Plan would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. h) The area surrounding the proposed project site is largely agricultural or developed. There is no substantial wildland in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, there is no expectation that construction of new buildings on the project site would expose people or structures to impacts from wildland fires. Thus, the topic of wildland fires will not be discussed in the EIR. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 26 Tivoli Specific Plan Project (continued) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion a, c-f) Development of the proposed project, including construction of the on-site drainage detention basin proposed within the planned park, would alter on-site drainage patterns and increase the rate of surface runoff due to development of new structures, roadways, and parking lots. Increased volume and rate of runoff could result in changes in drainage patterns, increases in flooding, and increases in urban runoff pollutant loading, including during construction periods. The EIR will evaluate potentially significant impacts associated with alteration of drainage patterns and increased run-off on the site. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 27 Tivoli Specific Plan Project b) On-site groundwater recharge sources consist of rainwater reaching the subsurface through deep percolation. Development of the proposed project would involve an increase of impervious surface on the site and may affect groundwater recharge potential. Additionally, it is anticipated that the project would include pumping of groundwater for additional wells. The EIR will evaluate potentially significant impacts of groundwater recharge. g-h) Flood hazard areas in the Modesto area are defined in the Public Safety Issues chapter of the Urban Area General Plan and are limited to properties along Dry Creek, and the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers.37 Located about 2½ miles to the north, the Stanislaus River is the closest flood hazard area to the project site. The Dry Creek and Tuolumne River are located about 2 and 4 miles, respectively, southeast from the project site. The project site is not located within any 100-year floor hazard area and none of the development components would be constructed within any flood hazard area. However, in 1998, there was significant sheet flooding through the project site, coming diagonally from the Oakdale area, continuing southeast through the Village One development area, and continuing into Naraghi Lake, which is about one mile southeast of the project site. Future development would need to address the potential for significant surface flooding that may occur. The EIR will discuss the potential flooding impacts at the site. i) The project site is located about 30 miles west and of the Don Pedro Dam and about 35 miles southwest and from the New Melones Dam. Despite being the project site would not be expected to be inundated with flood waters, in the unforeseeable event of a dam failure, as floods would have been dispersed throughout the central San Joaquin Valley. Therefore, this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. j) The project site is not located within the proximity of any natural or manmade large bodies of water where inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow would be likely. Therefore, this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 37 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan, 2003, p. VI-2. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 28 Tivoli Specific Plan Project (continued) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion The project site is located in Stanislaus County, adjacent to the northeastern city limit of the City of Modesto within Modesto’s Sphere of Influence. The 454-acre project site is within the City’s Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District (CPD), a 1,700-acre area designated for new business park and residential uses. This Planned Urbanizing Area is one of the areas outside of the Modesto city boundary that has been designated as an area that will absorb future urban development. The General Plan and CPD land use designation of the project site is Village Residential (VR). The Modesto Urban Area General Plan defines the purpose and intent of the VR designation as “to provide for the development of urban villages”…[consisting] of mixed-use, compact, pedestrian- and transit-oriented development.”38 The specific intent of the Roselle-Claribel CPD is to create a mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented community similar in nature to Village One, and to create a business park development proposed adjacent to the Santa Fe Railroad.39 a) The Roselle/Claribel CPD lands are predominantly agricultural and rural in character, with some commercial/office uses. Current land uses on the project site primarily include agricultural production, single-family residences, and some commercial/office space. Row crops and fallow fields make up the majority of the agricultural use throughout the north and central portions, with some orchards planted in the northwest corner of the site. Existing single-family residential neighborhoods make up the west-central portion along Mable Avenue and Lydia Lane, the south-central portion along Jeffrey Drive, and the south-eastern portion along McReynolds Avenue. There are additional stand-alone homesites with access along Roselle Avenue. An existing commercial/office center is located in the southwest corner of the site at the northeast corner of the Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue intersection. East of the commercial center along Sylvan is a church and 38 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan, 2003, p. III-4. 39 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan, 2003, p. III-70. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 29 Tivoli Specific Plan Project private recreational center. Further east on Sylvan Avenue at McReynolds Avenue is a commercial/light industrial building owned by Pacific Bell (SBC). A water storage tank reservoir area owned and operated by the City of Modesto and the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) is located in the center of the Specific Plan area. There is also a series of three microwave towers in the southwestern portion of the Specific Plan area, east of Lydia Lane. The project would change the land use designations and the physical configuration of the project site. Therefore, this topic will be addressed further in the EIR. b) The proposed project requires an Urban Area General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation for a portion of the project site from Village Residential to Regional Commercial (RC) and to exceed the minimum recommended density of 5.1 units per gross acre. Additionally, the project would also require General Plan Circulation and Transportation Diagram amendments, specifically for the re-classification of Claratina Avenue from a four-lane Class B Expressway to a six-lane Principal Arterial roadway. Therefore, as proposed, the project would not comply with existing plans. This topic will be discussed further in the EIR. c) There are no known habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans associated with the project site, and therefore this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. X. MINERAL RESOURCES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 30 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Discussion a, b) The Mineral Land Classification of Stanislaus County, California40 report states that the project site is not located within Mineral Resource Zone-2a41 or Mineral Resource Zone-2b42. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource recovery site that would be of future value to the region or state. Therefore, there would be no impact and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. XI. NOISE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 40 California Division of Mines and Geology, Mineral Land Classification of Stanislaus County, California, DMG Special Report 173, 1993, Plate 8C. This report is on file with the City of Modesto Community and Economic Development Department, 1010 Tenth Street, Modesto, CA. 41 “Areas classified MRZ-2a contain discovered mineral deposits that are either measured or indicated reserves as determined by such evidence as drilling records, sample analysis, surface exposure, and mine information. Land included in the MRZ-2a category is of prime importance because it contains known economic mineral deposits.” California Division of Mines and Geology, Mineral Land Classification of Stanislaus County, California, DMG Special Report 173, 1993, p. 33. 42 “Areas classified MRZ-2b contain discovered mineral deposits that are either inferred reserves as determined by limited sample analysis, exposure, and past mining history or are deposits that are presently sub-economic.” California Division of Mines and Geology, Mineral Land Classification of Stanislaus County, California, DMG Special Report 173, 1993, p. 34. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 31 Tivoli Specific Plan Project (continued) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion a-c) The proposed project would potentially increase existing noise levels on the project site and in the nearby vicinity from mechanical equipment related to new buildings and services and from project-generated traffic on nearby roads. The potentially significant impacts related to noise will, therefore, be analyzed in the EIR. d) Noise levels in the vicinity and on the project site would increase temporarily due to construction-related activities; however, the City of Modesto regulates construction activities through its Municipal Code. Construction noise is regulated under Section 4-9.103 of the Modesto Municipal Code, which prohibits noise before 7:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m. daily (except Saturday and Sunday and state or federal holidays, when the prohibited time is before 9:00 a.m. and after 9:00 p.m.).43 Construction activity would not occur during early morning and late evening periods when disturbances to nearby residents would be greater. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial temporary significant impact, and the topic of construction noise will not be discussed further in the EIR. e-f) The proposed project is not located within an area identified in the Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.44 Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working on the project site to excessive noise from aircraft. 43 City of Modesto Municipal Code Chapter 9: Noise Regulations. 44 Stanislaus County Airport Land Use Plan, Adopted August 3, 1978. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 32 Tivoli Specific Plan Project XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Discussion According to 2000 U.S. Census information, the population of Stanislaus County was about 447,000, and that of the City of Modesto was about 189,000.45 As of January 1, 2003, the California Department of Finance estimated Stanislaus County’s population to be about 481,500 and the City of Modesto’s to be about 203,500. According to Stanislaus Council of Governments (StanCOG) projections, the population in the City of Modesto is expected to grow to about 439,750 by 2025. Population projections are roughly consistent with the estimated development capacity projections, as stated in the 2002 General Plan Master Environmental Impact Report Update traffic model transportation analyses zone (TAZ) file data, which states that Modesto is expected to grow to about 400,000 persons by 2025.46 As stated in the 2002 General Plan Master EIR Update traffic model TAZ file data, about 304,000 persons would be expected to be employed within the General Plan boundary by 2025.47 Of those employees, about 148,000 would be employed in the City’s Planned Urbanizing Area, which includes anticipated employment in the Roselle/Claribel Specific Plan area.48 The proposed project would contribute to the City’s total employment growth. According to 2000 U.S. Census information, there were about 67,179 existing housing units in the City of Modesto. The 2002 General Plan Master EIR Update traffic model TAZ file data estimates that by 2025, there will be approximately 138,000 housing units within the city limits. 45 Population, employment and housing data have been rounded off. 46 Final Master EIR, Appendix F, Table F-1, Estimated Development Capacity: Population, Employment and Housing Units – 2002 General Plan by Growth Strategy Area. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 33 Tivoli Specific Plan Project New housing construction would be anticipated in the Planned Urbanizing Area, as well as infill development within the Baseline Developed Area and Redeveloped Area.49 a) The proposed project would include up to 3,193 residential housing units, a regional shopping center, and local commercial and office uses. The development would directly induce local (City of Modesto) population growth, as well as increase local (City of Modesto) and regional (Stanislaus County) employment, which could increase demand for housing. Therefore, this topic will be discussed further in the EIR. b-c) The proposed development would demolish an estimated 17 existing home sites on the 454-acre property. The California Department of Finance estimated the average household size for the City of Modesto in 2003 to be 2.916 persons per household. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would displace approximately 50 persons. The displaced persons would represent about 0.0002% of the total population for the City of Modesto in 2003. These persons would likely find new housing elsewhere in Modesto or in nearby County areas, and the EIR will not discuss the removal of existing housing units and displacement of persons. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? 49 Ibid. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 34 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Discussion The project includes up to 3,193 housing units, commercial, and office buildings. The residential component would create an increased demand for schools and park services, and both residential and commercial/office project components would create increased demand for fire and police services. a, b) The project could potentially have a physical impact on police and fire services by requiring additional facilities to meet the increased demand. Therefore, the effects of the project on these services will be discussed in the EIR. c) The proposed 454-acre project includes residential, commercial and office uses. In addition, a 13.5-acre parcel in the northeast portion of the Tivoli Specific Plan area has been identified as an elementary school site. If the Sylvan School District determines the elementary school site is not a necessary facility, the site could be redesignated for Residential use. Additionally, the Sylvan and Modesto City School Districts require school fees to be paid prior to the commencement of any construction activities. The developers of the Tivoli Specific Plan would be required to pay these school fees. Therefore, with the dedication of an elementary school site, and payment of required school fees, the project would not have a significant impact on school facilities, and this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. d) The Tivoli Neighborhood Specific Plan would include a 19.0-acre dual-use basin park located in the central portion of the site. As described below in ‘Recreation’, development of the project would not have a significant impact on parks and recreation facilities. e) Capital Facilities Fees are collected to cover the impact of other public facilities provided by the City of Modesto. XIV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 35 Tivoli Specific Plan Project Discussion a-b) The Tivoli Specific Plan area is located within the Mable Park Planning Area (No. 62).50 The City’s policies for developing park systems within Planned Urbanizing Areas are implemented through the requirements of each Comprehensive Planning District outlined in the Urban Area General Plan.51 The Urban Area General Plan requires each Planned Urbanizing Area to have at least one neighborhood park, centrally located within each residential neighborhood; access to one collector street (with the remaining access on residential streets); and a service radius one-half to three-quarters of a mile.52 The minimum size for a neighborhood park is required to be at least seven acres or equal to one acre of park land per 1,000 residents within the neighborhood, whichever is greater. Additionally, the Urban Area General Plan requires two acres of community park land per 1,000 persons (40-acre minimum), located within a radius of approximately one to one-and-one-half miles of a residential neighborhood. As with neighborhood parks, each community park should have one major street frontage, with the remaining sides fronting on residential streets. The proposed Specific Plan area would include a 19.0-acre dual-use basin park located in the central portion of the site. At least 9.0 acres of the proposed dual-use basin park would be dedicated for neighborhood park use. The remaining acreage would be designated for a water basin containment area. The project sponsor also proposes over 11 acres of linear parkway (paseo) along several interior collector roadways within the Specific Plan area. Although this paseo is open space, it would not be counted as available park land per the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan Neighborhood Park Standards.53 About 3,193 dwelling units are proposed within the Tivoli Specific Plan area. Using an average of 2.86 persons per household,54 approximately 9 acres of neighborhood park area are required per the City’s neighborhood park standards; therefore the proposed project would exceed the minimum required neighborhood park area under either size parameter. The approximately 40-acre Mary E. Grogan Park, a community park, has been approved for construction within the Village One Specific Plan area. Adjacent to the nearly completed Enochs High School, this community park is about one-half mile southeast of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area and would be sufficient to serve the residents associated with the proposed project. Although the proposed project would require the construction of new neighborhood park facilities and would lead to increased use of nearby community parks, it would not result in substantial physical deterioration of these facilities. Therefore, the project would not have a significant impact, and this topic will not be discussed in the EIR. 50 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan, 2003, Figure V-5 - Park Planning Areas, p. V-42. 51 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan, 2003, p. V-21. 52 City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan, 2003, p. V-22. 53 In addition to planned parks and open space areas, Class II bike lanes and pedestrian paths would also be constructed along Claratina, Oakdale, Sylvan, and Roselle Avenues, as well as through the project site, in accordance with the Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan. 54 General Demographic Characteristics: 2000 for the City of Modesto, U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.stancog.org/census/modesto.pdf. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 36 Tivoli Specific Plan Project XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Discussion a, b) The proposed project would construct approximately 3,193 residential units, areas for commercial and office space, parks, an elementary school, and approximately 900,000 square feet of regional shopping center type uses. The project would also include construction of roads and new surface parking lots. Development of this scale on the project site would generate additional traffic on the local transportation system, including increased volume-to-capacity ratios on nearby roads (affecting levels of service), and/or increased congestion at intersections. The EIR will discuss potentially significant impacts related to transportation and circulation, including intersection operations. c) The proposed project does not include the use of air traffic and would not change any existing air traffic patterns or levels. There would be no air-traffic-related safety risk as a For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 37 Tivoli Specific Plan Project result of the project. Therefore, this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. d) The proposed project would include construction of roads throughout the Tivoli Specific Plan project area and new surface parking lots at the regional shopping centers and neighborhood commercial areas. Additionally, new proposed vehicular ingress and egress is planned along Claratina Avenue, Oakdale Road, Roselle Avenue, and Sylvan Avenue. City and Caltrans traffic safety standards would be followed during the design and construction of these roads and points of ingress and egress to eliminate any potential hazards and maximize safety. Therefore, this topic will not be discussed further in the EIR. e) The proposed Tivoli Specific Plan includes streets that would provide access to each new structure. The internal roads in the Specific Plan area would be required to meet City standards for street system and access from surrounding arterials. The City’s Public Works Department and Fire Marshal would review street system design and site plan layout for adequacy of access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the topic of emergency access will not be discussed further in the EIR. f) The proposed project would include construction of parking on the regional shopping center sites, other neighborhood-serving commercial development, and new residential development. City parking standards would determine the final design layout and number of parking spaces required for the proposed regional shopping center sites, as well as planned neighborhood-serving commercial, and office uses proposed within the Tivoli Specific Plan area. The topic of parking capacity will be discussed further in the EIR. g) The proposed project would include non-motorized facilities, such as Class I bike paths and Class II bike lanes and pedestrian paths, that would be constructed along Claratina, Oakdale, Sylvan, and Roselle Avenues, as well as through the project site, in accordance with the Modesto Non-Motorized Transportation Master Plan. The EIR will discuss the planned bikeways and identify any potentially significant impacts operation of those bikeways may generate. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 38 Tivoli Specific Plan Project (continued) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion a) Wastewater disposal is regulated under the federal Clean Water Act and the state Porter- Cologne Water Quality Control Act.55 The Central Valley implements these acts by administering the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), issuing waste discharge permits, and establishing disposal capacity as well as best management practices.56 The proposed project would result in increased wastewater flows. Flows would be required to comply with NPDES regulatory requirements. Therefore, the project would comply with wastewater treatment requirements, and this topic will not be further discussed in the EIR. b) The existing Sonoma Trunk sewer line stubs out south of the project site at Sylvan Avenue. The Sonoma Trunk line would be extended north through the project site. Sanitary sewer service for the project would be provided by this extension. The construction of these new wastewater collection facilities could have a potentially significant environmental effect and this topic will be discussed in the EIR. A sewer 55 Final Master EIR, p. V-6-2. 56 Ibid. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 39 Tivoli Specific Plan Project capacity study will be prepared. The project could also require the expansion of City wastewater discharge facilities; therefore, the EIR will discuss this potential impact. A Water Supply Assessment and water capacity study will be prepared to determine whether sufficient water and infrastructure exists to supply the project in combination with other forecast growth in the City and the MID supply area. This topic will be discussed in the EIR. c) Development of the proposed project would alter on-site drainage patterns and increase the rate of surface runoff due to development of new structures, roadways, parking lots, and walkways. In addition, the development will increase impervious surfaces, reducing the property’s ability to absorb potential off-site water from sheet flooding in the area. Storm drainage would be captured locally and conveyed to a series of on-site basins located in the proposed 19.0-acre dual-use park basin facility. This facility would be completed during the initial phase (Phase I) of the proposed development. Two large basins proposed in the 19.0-acre park/basin would provide most of the on-site detention for the project area. Percolation tests57 have been performed to identify the capability of the underlying soils to allow stormwater that accumulates in these facilities to be discharged to underlying soils. The basins would be designed with stepped bottoms to contain small, frequent storms. They would also be designed to accommodate runoff from larger, less frequent storms; these larger storms would likely inundate the majority of the park and basin area. Vegetated swales would be constructed to provide treatment of storm water runoff that is directed to the two park basins. Therefore, the EIR will discuss the potentially significant environmental impacts of this topic. d) Domestic water would be supplied to the project site via a proposed “Grid System” connected to the City of Modesto’s existing water service. The proposed system would be sized with generally 12-inch mains on the City’s half-mile grid; all other water lines would be sized appropriately. It is anticipated that additional wells and water storage tanks may be required to supply the future demands of the Tivoli Specific Plan neighborhood, along with the proposed Phase II expansion of the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant. As stated above, a Water Supply Assessment and water capacity study will be prepared for the proposed project. Therefore, the topic of water supply will be discussed in the EIR. e) Development pursuant to the Specific Plan would generate additional amounts of wastewater from proposed new uses. This additional wastewater could exceed existing treatment and/or disposal capacity at the City of Modesto wastewater treatment plants. This topic will be discussed in the EIR. f, g) The proposed project would generate solid waste from residential, commercial, and office uses. The City uses the Modesto and Stanislaus County Waste-to-Energy Plant, which has ample capacity to handle new waste from the project site.58 Therefore, the topics of landfill space and compliance with federal, state, and local laws governing waste disposal will not be discussed further in the EIR. 57 Kleinfelder, Inc., Soil Borings and Percolation Testing - Proposed Storm Basins - Future Roselle Neighborhood Development - Modesto, California, September 2004. 58 April 14, 2005, e-mail from Karin Rodriguez, City of Modesto Integrated Waste Specialist. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Environmental Checklist Turnstone Consulting 40 Tivoli Specific Plan Project XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a) As discussed under Biological Resources, implementation of the project may have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and reduce protected and/or sensitive species habitat. These potentially significant impacts will be discussed in the EIR. b) Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to significant cumulative traffic and air quality impacts that could be cumulatively considerable. These potentially significant impacts will be discussed further in the EIR. c) The proposed project would not have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. For the City of Modesto Initial Study, July 21, 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX B: APPLICABLE GOALS AND POLICIES ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Applicable Goals and Policies Turnstone Consulting, T160 1 Tivoli Specific Plan/ Draft EIR October 12, 2006 APPLICABLE GOALS AND POLICIES Presented below are selected provisions excerpted from the City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan, which are applicable to the EIR topic, Land Use. These and other provisions will be considered by the City in their deliberations on whether to approve, disapprove or approve the project with modifications. This consideration is independent of the environmental review for the proposed project. Additional provisions, not identified in this EIR, may be considered during the deliberation process and would not alter the analysis of physical environmental impacts of the proposed project presented in this EIR. LAND USE Modesto Urban Area General Plan, Chapter II. Community Growth Strategy Policy II-B.1 – Provide timely infrastructure. As the City expands and vacant land becomes developed, infrastructure such as roads, sewer, water and drainage is necessary to support that development. As the City directs the extension of this infrastructure, economic development opportunities should receive the highest priority for receiving such infrastructure. Policy II-C.1 – In general, maintenance of a five-year supply of available vacant and agricultural land served with urban infrastructure will be desirable. Policy II-C.1 – Urban development should be kept as contiguous as possible in order to avoid premature urbanization of valuable farm land, foster resident convenience, and provide for economy in City services. Policy II-C.1 – Urban growth should be directed, as long as economically feasible, to areas currently served with City services. Modesto Urban Area General Plan, Chapter III. Community Development Policies Policy III-C.1[b] – Section 65803 of the Government Code indicates that in charter cities such as Modesto, zoning need not be consistent with the General Plan. Notwithstanding, development plans within the Baseline Developed Area may be found consistent with the General Plan if they are consistent with the Zoning Code and Map and the various policies of the General Plan. Zone changes may be approved anywhere in the General Plan Area, if the following findings are made: The requested zone change is required by public convenience or necessity. The requested change will result in an orderly planning use of land resources. Adequate environmental mitigation has been provided through the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures established by the Master Environmental Impact Report and any supplements to the MEIR. Traffic and public facility issues are particularly relevant in this analysis. Policy III-C.1[c] – Additional vehicles to guide future development, in both the Baseline Developed Area and the Planned Urbanizing Area, include Neotraditional Planning Policies and Neighborhood Plan Prototype Policies. Policy III-C.1[d] – Specific Plans, adopted pursuant to Section 65450 et seq. of the California Government Code, may be used to provide primary policy guidance to future development within ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Applicable Goals and Policies Turnstone Consulting, T160 2 Tivoli Specific Plan/ Draft EIR October 12, 2006 their respective geographic areas. Specific Plans may be adopted to implement any of the Land Use Designations presented on the Land Use Diagram, and they may be used within any Growth Strategy Designation: Redevelopment Area; Baseline Developed Area; or Planned Urbanizing Area. Policy III-C.3[a] – Communities or neighborhoods should be designed so that housing, jobs, daily needs and other activities are within easy walking distance of each other. Policy III-C.3[b] – As many activities as possible should be located within easy walking distance of transit stops. Policy III-C.3[c] – Communities or neighborhoods should contain a diversity of housing types to enable citizens from a wide range of economic levels and age groups to live within its boundaries. Policy III-C.3[d] – Businesses within a community or neighborhood should provide a range of job types for the community's or neighborhood's residents. Policy III-C.3[e] – The location and character of the community or neighborhood should be consistent with a larger transit network. Policy III-C.3[g] – Each community or neighborhood should contain an ample supply of specialized open space in the form of squares, greens and parks whose frequent use is encouraged through placement and design. Policy III-C.3[h] – Streets, pedestrian paths and bike paths should contribute to a system of fully connected and interesting routes to all destinations. Their design should encourage pedestrian and bicycle use by being small and spatially defined by buildings, trees, and lighting; and by discouraging high speed traffic. Wherever possible, natural terrain, drainage, and vegetation should be preserved with superior examples contained within parks or greenbelts. Policy III-D.1[a] – Since each Comprehensive Planning District contains a number of properties, unified direction from affected property owners should be encouraged, particularly for privately- initiated applications. In the case of disparate or unknown development intentions, the City may proactively seek consensus from affected property owners. Policy III-D.1[b] – The Comprehensive Plan within each Comprehensive Planning District should establish clear and comprehensive implementation tools which identify all subsequent land use approvals required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Policy III-D.1[d] – Each Comprehensive Plan should include a long-term financing strategy which provides reasonable estimates of on- and off-site infrastructure to support the proposed development pattern. The strategy should generally address public-facility funding, including schools, for any development project which serves to implement the subject Comprehensive Plan. If new public facilities are required which will also serve the broader community, the Comprehensive Plan should include options for broad-based funding mechanisms. Policy III-D.1[e] – Comprehensive Plans, as defined on Chapter VIII, shall be used for the implementation of the Comprehensive Planning District presented in Figure III-1. Specific Plans, as defined in Section 65450 et seq. of the California Government Code, are particularly suited for ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Applicable Goals and Policies Turnstone Consulting, T160 3 Tivoli Specific Plan/ Draft EIR October 12, 2006 this purpose. Other options are available, provided that they present sufficient guidance for future development. Modesto Urban Area General Plan, Chapter III. Community Development Policies, Exhibit III-18 Roselle / Claribel Comprehensive Planning District Policy III-D. Exhibit III-18 1 – Overview This 1,700-acre Comprehensive Planning District is intended to create a mixed-use, pedestrian- oriented community similar in nature to Village One. In addition, a business park is proposed adjacent to the Santa Fe Railroad. Policy III-D. Exhibit III-18,3[a] – Land Use Types - 1,430 acres designed “Village Residential” - 206 acres designated “Business Park” Policy III-D. Exhibit III-18,3[b] – Distribution of Land Uses Within the CPD The supporting commercial uses in the Comprehensive Planning District should be sited to facilitate pedestrian access from the residential areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C: TIVOLI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL REPORT ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Tivoli Regional Commercial Project City of Modesto CA Prepared for: Turnstone Consulting July 2006 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. Golden Gateway Commons 55 Pacific Avenue Mall San Francisco, California 94111 500 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, California 90071 1660 Hotel Circle North, Suite 716 San Diego, California 92130 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Work EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SECTION I. PROPOSED RETAIL Illustrative Power Center Tenancies Project Location SECTION II. MARKET DEMAND Trade Area Definition Estimated Residual Retail Expenditure Existing/Planned Competition SECTION III. POPULATION GROWTH SECTION IV. RETAIL MARKET CONDITIONS Demographic Vacancy and Retenanting of SECTION V. SHARE OF SALES BY PROPOSED RETAIL Trade Area Downtown Other Submarkets in Modesto TABLES 24 35 Keyser Marston Associates 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- INTRODUCTION This report has been prepared at the request of Turnstone Consulting as part of the preparation of the Tivoli Specific Plan EIR. Its purpose is to evaluate 1) whether demand exists for regional commercial uses in northeast Modesto, and 2) whether the development of the regional-serving commercial component of the Tivoli Specific Plan will have potential impacts on other retail facilities in the City of Modesto that could result in urban decay. As used in this report and as agreed to by the client in the scope for this assignment, “urban decay” means the closure of certain retail and other stores, as a result of market competition, that leaves decaying building shells in existing neighborhoods. At the direction of the client, this report assumes that no discount superstore or supercenter will be included in the Tivoli Specific Plan Area. City staff has defined a discount superstore generally as a “big box” discount store in excess of 120,000 square feet in which at least five percent of the gross floor area is devoted to goods that are not subject to state sales tax groceries). Examples of discount superstores include Wal-Mart supercenters, Super Kmarts, and Super Target stores. Therefore, no impacts that could be associated with super stores/centers are evaluated in the report. Background As shown on Map 1, the Tivoli Specific Plan Area is located in the northeastern portion of Modesto, approximately 6 miles east of Highway 99, at the southeast corner of Oakdale Road and the planned Claratina Avenue. The regional-serving commercial component consists of approximately 67 acres (“Tivoli Regional Commercial Project”, or “Tivoli RCP”) of the 454-acre area proposed for future mixed-use development in the Tivoli Specific Plan. The other land use components of the Tivoli Specific Plan are 3,200 residential dwelling units, 14 acres of neighborhood-serving commercial, six acres of other commercial, 2 acres of professional office space, an elementary school site, about 30 acres of parks and open space and about 31 acres of interior collector roadways. The Specific Plan also includes provisions for the construction of new arterial and collector streets and linkages to the existing circulation system and transit services in Modesto. The 67-acre Tivoli Regional Commercial Project is comprised of two parcels: a 47-acre parcel north of Mable Avenue and a 20-acre parcel south of Mable (identified as RSC-1 and RSC-2, respectively, in the Specific Plan, as shown on Map development on these parcels is the focus of this evaluation. The commercial concept being considered in the Tivoli Specific Plan on the 67 acres is a power center that would have approximately 900,000 square foot of retail space anchored by a mix of big box and large promotional/discount tenants. The types of retail Keyser Marston Associates Page 1 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- uses generally found in a power center include large format home improvement, electronic goods, sporting goods, arts/crafts, books and other specialty stores, as well as eating and drinking places. No specific tenancies for either of these concepts have been identified by the developers; therefore, for this analysis, we have identified illustrative stores that could potentially take space in the development. Work Scope To complete this assignment, KMA analyzed retail operations throughout the City of Modesto, with particular focus on retail operations and market conditions within an approximate 3 to 5-mile radius of the subject site in northeast Modesto (specific boundaries of the trade area are delineated in the Trade Area section of this study). The population residing in the trade area will provide most of the market support for retail development at the Tivoli RCP site, and impacts on other businesses would most likely be felt within the vicinity. The activities that were undertaken for this assignment included the following: Site inspection; Field review of the major retail stores/centers and competitive regional-serving facilities in the greater Modesto market (from Oakdale to Turlock); Interview of representatives from major real estate firms (PMZ Commercial, Centerra Capital, CoSol Commercial Real Estate, Velthoen Associates Commercial Brokers, and Tim Martin from Lee & Associates) in Modesto who specialize in retail properties and review of retail data pertaining to inventory and vacancy provided by these professionals; Discussion with staff of the City of Modesto regarding development issues and review of building permit activities and other data made available by City staff; Interview of planning staff from the cities of Riverbank, Ceres, Oakdale and the county regarding existing and proposed development activities in the trade area which may have implications for the proposed project; Review of available retail listings on LoopNet for rent data; and Analysis of demographic and taxable sales data from the California Department of Finance, the State Board of Equalization, and from industry sources. Keyser Marston Associates Page 2 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We have concluded that it is unlikely that the development of the proposed Tivoli Regional Commercial Project that is the subject of this report will result in urban decay. The reasons for this conclusion, discussed in greater detail in the accompanying text, are the following: The types of stores typically located in a power center are logical candidates for inclusion in a suburban market such as Modesto and are represented in many other comparable retail situations in California without causing urban decay. We can identify no factors unique to this situation that would indicate a different conclusion in respect to this project. There is market demand for the intended regional retail uses in northeast Modesto, based on population trends, retail spending, and the existing and planned competition in the trade area served by the regional retail uses proposed at the Tivoli RCP. The illustrative stores assumed in this analysis would largely compete with other chains rather than independent retailers: As examples, Lowe’s would compete primarily with Home Depot; Marshall’s would compete with an array of soft goods retailers including Kohl’s, J.C. Penney and Ross. Michael’s would compete with both national chains, such as Beverly’s, and local stores. A traditional/non- supercenter Wal-Mart, if it were a tenant, would compete, however, with a broad spectrum of retailers. The proposed location of the Tivoli RCP is appropriate for high intensity retail development given that many of the big box and large promotional/discount stores that are currently in the City do not have a northeast Modesto store. Population growth in Modesto and in northeast Modesto and the trade area in which the proposed power center is to be located is strong, with notable residential subdivision activity to the south and west of the site; as a result, some major big box and large promotional/discount retailers have begun to seek representation in this market to meet the demand for retail goods, and more are likely to do so in the future. Conditions in the retail market in Modesto are positive, with increasing rents and commercial land prices, and very low vacancy in retail space; retail performance in Modesto has outpaced performance in the State as a whole based on measures reviewed in this report. Keyser Marston Associates Page 3 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- There is strong re-tenanting of competitive retail spaces in Modesto and northeast Modesto when those spaces are (rarely) available on the market; therefore, even when some stores do close, the properties are recycled for active uses, without long-term vacancy and resulting urban decay. As detailed in the report, larger blocks of space that have remained vacant for long periods are usually in undesirable facilities and/or locations. Due to locational and competitive factors, operation or completion of the power center is anticipated to have virtually no impact on downtown Modesto or on retail uses along Highway 99. It may have an impact on older/weaker facilities along McHenry Avenue, but the impact will likely be mitigated by the City’s strong retail market conditions, the limited availability of large, well-located retail space, and success in recycling of comparable properties. Keyser Marston Associates Page 4 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- Discussion The following discussion and accompanying statistical tables and charts provide the basis for the conclusions reported above. SECTION I. PROPOSED RETAIL FACILITIES Our analysis indicates that a regional-serving power center anchored by big box or large promotional/discount stores would be a retail complex for the northeast Modesto that will have market support and be responsive to the shopping needs of the present and projected population in the trade area. Illustrative Power Center Tenancies The Tivoli Regional Commercial Project would be the first major power center to locate in northeast Modesto. No specific tenant commitment for the Tivoli RCP is known at the time of this study preparation; the developer and his representatives have indicated that they are in discussion with a number of big box and large promotional/discount stores. For the purpose of this analysis, we have compiled a list of illustrative tenancies that typify power centers, as shown on Table 1. (Note that this list is not intended to be comprehensive, but a representative example of the categories and types of stores that can generally be found in a power center.) A number of the big box/large promotional or discount retailers on the list may be difficult to secure for the Tivoli RCP; for example: Target and Home Depot are already located in the Riverbank’s Crossroads Center less than one mile north of the Tivoli RCP site and Kohl’s has also committed to opening a store in the Crossroads Center as well. There is another Target store on McHenry Avenue in northeast Modesto (plus another Target on Sisk Road, a Home Depot on Carpenter Road and a Kohl’s on Plaza Parkway in Modesto). These big box anchors are unlikely to open an additional store in close proximity to their existing stores. There are two existing Orchard Supply Hardware stores in Modesto, one of which is located only about a mile south of the Project on Oakdale Road. Again, it is unlikely that the Tivoli RCP site would be a logical second location; a possibility is that the existing store could relocate. Costco is a potential candidate for locating a second Modesto store in the Tivoli RCP; however, the opinion of retail brokers interviewed by KMA is that Costco would be a longer-term candidate as the existing residential market is not yet Keyser Marston Associates Page 5 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- perceived by that retailer as sufficiently strong or large enough to support a second store. Also, Costco typically prefers a freeway location. For the purpose of this analysis, KMA has assumed that a power center at the Tivoli RCP site could potentially include a major home improvement store Lowe’s, Orchard Supply) and/or a major discount store traditional/non-supercenter Wal- Mart, Kmart), a specialty-retail store Michael’s, Best Buy, Bed, Bath & Beyond) and several large promotional/ discount apparel stores Marshall’s, Mervyn’s, Ross). Some of these stores are already in the Modesto market, but may consider a relocation from a less desirable location or facility and/or opening a new/second store in northeast Modesto. A brief description of some of these illustrative retail anchors and their market position is summarized below. A representative list of additional retailers which are typical tenants in a power center is shown on Table 1. Lowe’s continues to evolve from a regional operator of hardware stores into a nationwide chain of home improvement stores, second only to Home Depot. Based in Mooresville, North Carolina, Lowe’s operates more than 1,075 stores in 48 states. The company’s stores sell a complete line of home improvement products. Lowe’s caters to the “do-it-yourselfer” as well as commercial customers. Lowe’s is in the midst of an aggressive expansion strategy and opens a new store every three days, according to the company website. Lowe’s currently operates 62 stores in California. Sales average approximately $34 million per store. In the Modesto market, as in other markets in California, Lowe’s competes directly with Home Depot. The Lowe’s store at the Northpointe Shopping Center at Pelandale Avenue and Highway 99 is the chain’s first entry into the Modesto market. It competes primarily with the Home Depot store in Modesto. Wal-Mart discount stores that are traditional/non-supercenter stores average approximately 100,000 square feet in size. Expansion of the discount store segment in fiscal year 2006 included the opening of 24 new stores, however 166 existing discount stores were converted into supercenters during this period. Wal-Mart supercenters are not included in this analysis as a potential tenant for the RCP site. The traditional/non-supercenter Wal-Mart discount stores carry a wide variety of general merchandise including apparel, domestics, stationery and books, shoes, housewares, hardware, electronics, home furnishings, small appliances, automotive accessories, horticulture and accessories, sporting goods, toys, jewelry, and health and beauty aids. Some stores also include pharmaceutical and optical departments, as well as photo processing services. Most carry a limited assortment of dry grocery merchandise. Traditional/non- Keyser Marston Associates Page 6 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- supercenter Wal-Mart discount stores compete with other discount, department, drug, variety and specialty stores and supermarkets, many of which are national chains. In June 2006, there were 1,163 Wal-Mart discount stores in the U.S. In Modesto, there is a traditional/non-supercenter Wal-Mart discount store at the Central Valley Plaza located off Hwy 99 at 2225 Plaza Parkway, on the City’s northeast side, and another at Plaza del Rio in Ceres. Sam’s Club, a division of Wal-Mart, is similar in concept to Costco and is currently unrepresented in this market. Kmart Corporation is a mass merchandising company that serves America through its 1,479 Kmart and Kmart super center retail outlets in 49 states, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Traditional/non-supercenter Kmart stores range in size from 80,000 square feet to 110,000 square feet and offer private label apparel, house wares and electronics. Traditional Kmarts also include a pharmacy. The larger format Super Kmarts are not included in this analysis as a potential tenant for the subject site. In March, 2005 Kmart Holding Corporation merged with Sears, Roebuck and Co resulting in a new retail company called Sears Holding Corporation. Sears Holding is now the nation’s 3rd largest retailer with approximately $55 billion in annual revenues and nearly 3,900 retail stores in the U.S. Sears Holding is planning to convert many Kmart stores to the Sears Essentials format by 2007. Kmart currently operates a store in Modesto at 1351 E. Hatch Road. Michael’s Stores, Inc. is the largest national arts-and-crafts specialty retailer. The company operates 895 Michael’s retail stores in 48 states as well as in Canada, each averaging 18,500 square feet of selling space. The chain offers an extensive line of arts-and-crafts supplies and products for crafters and do-it- yourself home decorators. Michael’s currently operates 90 stores in California, including a store in Modesto at Vintage Commons. It competes with several smaller arts & crafts chains, of which Beverly’s has a presence in Modesto (Evergreen Avenue near Highway 99). Additionally, Michael’s considers small, local specialty retailers to be competitors as well as mass merchandisers. The chain is pursuing a continued growth strategy, under the belief that U.S. and Canadian markets can support up to 1,200 stores. Plans are to open 45 new Michael’s stores a year. Stores that have been open more than three years have averaged approximately $4 million in net sales per store; their target is to hit $5 million. Keyser Marston Associates Page 7 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- Marshall’s, whose parent company is TJX Companies, is one of the nation’s leading off-price family apparel and home fashion retailers with 718 stores in the U.S. and Puerto Rico, with 93 located in California. Marshall’s stores average 32,000 square feet and offer a wide selection of brand name apparel, giftware and housewares. Marshall’s caters to women between the ages of 25 – 54 who are married, college-educated, homeowners and from middle to upper income families. Stores are typically located in suburban community shopping centers. In the Modesto Market, Marshall’s anchors Marshall’s Plaza located at 3440 McHenry Avenue. Top competitors include Kohl’s, Sears, Ross & Mervyn’s. In fiscal year 2005 sales data is available for the combined TJ Maxx and Marshall’s segment; sales average approximately $7.2 million per store. The illustrative retail operations identified above, which could anchor the retail complex, are suitable and appropriate tenants for the Tivoli RCP in Modesto, based on store location and market criteria in the retail industry, and have located in similar centers in suburban trade areas without causing urban decay. Smaller retail tenancies which would also occupy space in the center would generally rely on the draw of the larger stores; many of these tenants dot the retail landscape in Modesto without causing urban decay, and it is not apparent why they would do so in this instance, particularly as there is market demand for regional retail in northeast Modesto. Project Location The Tivoli RCP site has positive and negative attributes for significant build-out featuring big box stores. The principal positive attributes are proximity to appreciable residential development that is underserved for retail and absence of competitive sites zoned for this use. The Tivoli RCP site is located in northeast Modesto in an area of rapid population growth (as expanded on in the next section). As discussed in a later section, there is currently a very limited number of big box retailers (Target, Home Depot) and large promotional/discount retailers in northeast Modesto. Additional retail is therefore supportable in this quadrant of the City to serve the needs of the population. There are few large sites currently zoned and/or readily available for regional commercial uses in the City. The 67 acres designated for regional commercial represents an opportunity for the development of a significant power center, anchored by big box and large promotional/discount retailers. The principal negative attribute, which would typically render the location secondary for many retailers, is related to accessibility: the site does not have Keyser Marston Associates Page 8 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- freeway accessibility and visibility, and the planned Pelandale Expressway/ Claratina Extension, which would significantly improve east-west access to the site, has been funded for two travel lanes as a city improvement project. At the present time, the 47-acre portion (RSC-1) of the Tivoli RCP site is accessible only from Oakdale Road in the north-south direction. Claratina Avenue is a two-lane road east of Coffee Road (although according to city staff, only one more parcel is needed for securing the right-of-way to widen the road segment between Coffee and Oakdale Roads as part of the planned Pelandale Expressway) and does not extend all the way east of the site to connect with Roselle Avenue, the site’s eastern boundary. The 20-acre portion (RSC-2) of the site is located mid-block and fronts on Oakdale Road. A new interior road will need to be created to provide a second access point to the site. Major road improvements are planned at the periphery of the site, the most significant being the construction of Claratina Avenue, an arterial street, along the site’s northern boundary. Currently, Pelandale Avenue, which starts eastward from Highway 99 and becomes Claratina Avenue once past McHenry Avenue, terminates at Coffee Road, before the subject site. According to city staff, the portion of the Claratina Avenue extension between Coffee Road and Oakdale Road has been funded. The portion of the improvement extending Claratina Avenue all the way to the Santa Fe Railroad tracks, about one-mile past the eastern edge of the Tivoli Specific Plan area, has not yet been funded. Based on traffic counts conducted by Dowling Associates in May 2005, an estimated 1,400 cars passed by the site along Oakdale Road during morning and evening peak hours. By 2017, assuming that Claratina Avenue is extended all the way to Roselle Road at the eastern edge of the Tivoli Specific Plan area and other traffic improvements are made in the area, the number of cars passing by the site along Oakdale Road is projected by Dowling Associates to double. Keyser Marston Associates Page 9 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- SECTION II. MARKET DEMAND Our analysis indicates that there is market demand for the intended regional retail uses, based on population trends, retail spending, and existing/planned competition. Trade Area Definition In retail trade area analysis, the primary trade area is generally defined as the geographic area within which the bulk of the sales of the retail complex originate. The remainder typically comes from spending of employees and/or visitors from outside of the primary trade area. Key factors in delineating the trade area are accessibility, demographic characteristics, and the location of competitive shopping venues. For the Tivoli Regional Commercial Project, the primary trade area is defined as the area bounded by McHenry Avenue on the west, Freeway 120 to the north, Route J9 to the east, and Highway 132 to the south (see Map The basis for trade area delineation is as follows: Due to the large concentration and wide representation of big box and large promotional/discount retail stores along the Highway 99 corridor, it is anticipated that residents west of McHenry Avenue would unlikely travel eastward to the Tivoli RCP. The ability of the Tivoli RCP to draw sales support from areas west of McHenry to west of Highway 99 would be severely limited by the strength of the large retail concentration along Highway 99. Map 4 shows the location of the major big box and large discount/promotional retailers in Modesto; Table 2 provides a list of typical power center big box and promotional/discount retailers and their current representation in the Tivoli RCP Trade Area. Similarly, residents south of Highway 132 would probably drive south to Ceres or Turlock for their retail goods, where there are similar concentrations of big box and large promotional/discount stores as those on Highway 99. The ability to import sales from residential areas south of Highway 132 would also be minimal – as many stores are already represented in either Ceres or Turlock. The population centers to the north and east of Modesto’s city limits, however, such as in Riverbank, Oakdale, Escalon and Waterford, could potentially be captured by the regional retail opportunities at the Tivoli RCP, provided that the project is able to secure tenancies that are differentiated from or is compatible with existing or planned stores Target, Home Depot, Kohl’s) at the Crossroads Center in Riverbank. All of the residential areas in the primary trade area defined above are within five miles of the Tivoli RCP site. Retailers would typically project that the population residing within Keyser Marston Associates Page 10 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- this trade area would generate the bulk of their total sales. Based on information provided by Claritas, a secondary U.S. Census data source, and City staff, the population within the primary trade is estimated at 155,186 for 2006 and projected to grow to 169,590 by 2011, an increase of (See Table Estimated Residual Retail Expenditure Potential Our estimate of the “residual retail expenditure potential” available from the Trade Area indicates that there is market support for approximately 538,000 square feet of comparison retail at the Tivoli RCP site by 2008 and 707,000 square feet of comparison retail by 2011. The “residual retail expenditure potential” is the amount of retail sale dollars estimated to be available from the Trade Area population based upon the general consumer spending patterns, less estimated existing sales within the trade area. For the Tivoli RCP, this expenditure potential is estimated for the comparison retail categories that are typically represented in a power center Apparel, General Merchandise, Specialty Goods, Home Furnishings & Appliances, and Building Materials), as follows: As shown on Tables 4a and 4b, the projected Trade Area population is approximately 161,330 for 2008 and 169,590 for 2011. Based on per capita income of $23,000 (escalated at 1% from the 2006 per capita income of $21,890 projected by Claritas), the total gross income available from the Trade Area population would be in the range of $3.5 billion by 2008 and $3.9 billion by 2011. Of total gross income, only a portion is typically spent on comparison retail goods. The average statewide per capita expenditure for the above comparison categories of retail goods (Apparel, General Merchandise, Specialty Goods, Home Furnishings & Appliances, and Building Materials) represents approximately 18% of the state total per capita income of $25,000, as shown on Table 5. Applying the applicable ratio for each of the selected retail categories to the projected Trade Area gross income of $3.5 billion by 2008 and $3.9 billion by 2011, the total expenditure potential available from the Trade Area population is projected to be approximately $592 million (2008) and $650 million (2011) (See Tables 4a and 4b.) These estimates have been adjusted to exclude the portion of General Merchandise sales that is usually represented in traditional department stores and which would not be represented at the Tivoli Project. Estimated existing sales for the same categories of retail stores in the Trade Area are in the range of $420 million (non-escalated). Due to confidentiality issues, sales volumes for individual stores are not available. However, KMA estimated existing sales based on sales report available from the specific store chains and/or on typical industry sales ranges for the types of big box and large promotional/discount stores identified in the Trade Area. A portion of the total sales is assumed to come from smaller and/or non-anchored retail shops in the Keyser Marston Associates Page 11 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- Trade Area. For stores located on McHenry Avenue, only 50% of the estimated sales are assumed to come from the population within the Trade Area since McHenry Avenue is a major north-south route that forms the western boundary of the Trade Area. The residual expenditure potential available from the Trade Area for the five selected categories of retail goods (Apparel, General Merchandise, Specialty Goods, Home Furnishings & Appliances, and Building Materials) is therefore estimated at $172 million for 2008 ($592 million minus $420 million), as shown on Table 4a, and $230 million for 2011 ($650 million minus $420 million), as shown on Table 4b. Based on the typical sales productivity level of these types of retail stores – which range generally from $300 to $425 per square foot per year – the additional retail development that could potentially be supported by the trade area is estimated at 503,000 sq.ft. for 2008 and 672,000 sq.ft. for 2011. In addition, allowances of an additional 10,000 sq. ft. for supplemental groceries and drugs as in a traditional major discount store) and 25,000 sq. ft for food restaurants/cafes, food court, fast food/take-outs) are included, resulting in a total of supportable retail development in the range of 538,000 sq.ft. for 2008 and 707,000 sq.ft. for 2011. As shown in Tables 4a and 4b, this analysis indicates that there is likely to be adequate demand in the Tivoli RCP Trade Area to support a power center in the range of 700,000 square feet at the project site by 2011. Existing/Planned Competition There are two existing major power centers anchored by big box retailers and large discount/promotional stores in Modesto: the 675,000 square foot Northpointe Center at Pelandale Avenue and Highway 99 (Costco, Lowe’s) and the 497,000 square foot Vintage Commons at Sisk Road and Vintage Drive (Target, Office Max). There are also a number of free-standing and non-power center-anchored stores, such as Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Office Depot, Target and Mervyn’s in Modesto, as shown on Map 4. Both of the existing power centers and the majority of the free-standing/non-power center- anchored stores are located along Highway 99, in the northwest quadrant of the City. A third power center, which has recently opened with a Target and a Home Depot and is still being completed, is the approximately 630,000-square foot Crossroads Center located in the City of Riverbank, just northeast of Modesto. A secondary regional retail hub in Modesto is the McHenry Avenue Corridor, an older commercial strip mid-way between the subject site and Highway 99. A number of stand- Keyser Marston Associates Page 12 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- alone/single-anchored, promotional/discount retailers, such as Target, Marshall’s, Barnes & Nobles, and Mervyn’s, are located along this corridor. Some of these stores/centers are beginning to evidence signs of obsolescence and, according to the brokers interviewed, some are in transition to other uses (such as from theater to supermarket) or other retail tenancy (such as from supermarket to general merchandise). There are currently no power centers anchored by big box retailers in northeast Modesto (within the Modesto city limits); consequently, local residents must travel across town to shop at the big box stores/power centers along McHenry Avenue to 5-miles) or Highway 99 (about 6- to 8-miles). The newly opened Target and Home Depot stores and the proposed Kohl’s store at the Crossroads Center in the City of Riverbank, less than a mile from the subject site, will help to meet some of the retail demand from residents of northeast Modesto. No new power center is known to have been proposed or in planning at this time within the City of Modesto. Thus, the Tivoli RCP site represents an opportunity for the location of a significant retail development in northeast Modesto to serve the unmet retail needs of its residents. Keyser Marston Associates Page 13 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- SECTION III. POPULATION GROWTH The Tivoli Regional Commercial Project is proposed to be located in a trade area that is experiencing appreciable population growth, with consequent high demand for retail goods in the near- to mid-term future. The following describes the projected growth in the northeast Modesto trade area, the area from which the proposed power center at the Tivoli project is anticipated to draw the bulk of its market support. 2008 Although no estimate is readily available from the City on the number of new residents and households added in the northeast quadrant since 2000, a market study prepared by DDS Marketing in 2004 indicates that an estimated 600 to 700± units (or an average of about 150 to 175 units per year) were either recently completed or under construction at that time. City staff estimates that an additional 1,896 units are currently under construction, approved, or planned in northeast Modesto (See Map Final Maps Recorded (1/05 to Units Tentative Maps Approved (1/05 to Units Tentative Maps Outstanding Units Active Projects (As of Units Total Units Assuming an 80% build-out by 2008 (1,517 units) and an average household size of 2.9 persons per unit (citywide household size estimate per California Department of Finance), there could potentially be another 4,399 new residents in the rest of northeast Modesto in the next two to three years. In addition, approximately 3,200 new units are expected to be developed in the Tivoli Specific Plan Area (SPA) with construction start anticipated in 2008 and build out in 2017. According to City staff, most, or about 2,500, units are expected to by built by 2012, or an average of 500 units per year. Thus, assuming construction starts in early 2008, an estimated 500 units would be completed in the Tivoli SPA by the end of 2008. At an average household size of 2.9 persons per unit, the Tivoli SPA would add an additional 1,450 new residents to northeast Modesto by 2008. Keyser Marston Associates Page 14 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- No significant residential development is current expected in the remainder of the trade area outside of the city of Modesto, i.e., in Riverbank, Oakdale and Escalon, as these communities are nearly built out. Significant new development will require major infrastructure investments and/or land annexation into city limits. For the purpose of this analysis, a nominal 50 new units per year are assumed to be built in the remainder of the trade area, or 100 additional new units (290 new residents) by 2008. Thus, between 2006 and 2008, there could potentially be a total of 6,139 (4,399 + 1,450 + 290) new residents in the trade area. These additional units would provide further support for retail development in the near to mid-term future in northeast Modesto. 2011 Between 2008 and 2011, significant residential development activities are also expected at two specific plan areas in northeast Modesto: Pelandale-McHenry Specific Plan Area (SPA) and Village One Specific Plan Area and environs (Source: City of Modesto). Proposed plans for both these areas include a significant residential component, as follows: Pelandale-McHenry Specific Plan Area – Located southwest of McHenry Avenue and Pelandale Avenue, an estimated 386 residential units are planned for this area. At 80% build-out, the Pelandale-McHenry SPA would add an estimated 309 units, or 896 new residents. Village One Specific Plan Area – A mixed-use community on approximately 1,784 net acres in northeastern Modesto, the Specific Plan for this area includes a total 7,000 to 8,000 new housing units. City staff estimate that about 500 new units (totaling 1,450 new residents) would be developed in the Village I SPA and areas adjacent by 2011. Thus, by 2011, there could potentially be a total of about 2,838 new units added in northeast Modesto, consisting of the following: - 379 new units assuming build-out of the remainder of projects currently under construction or planned; - 1,500 new units assuming an average of 500 units per year in the Tivoli SPA between 2009 and 2011; - 309 new units in the Pelandale-McHenry SPA; - 500 units in Village I and adjacent areas; Keyser Marston Associates Page 15 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- - 150 new units in the remainder of the trade area. At an average of 2.9 persons per household, the 2,838 new units above would generate an additional 8,230 new residents in northeast Modesto between 2008 and 2011, or a total of 14,369 new residents by 2011 (6,139 units between 2006 and 2008 and an additional 8,230 units between 2008 and 2011). After 2011 City Staff also estimate that, in the longer term (likely after 2011) the remaining portion of the Roselle/Claribel Comprehensive Planning District could potentially be developed with about 950 acres of Village Residential and the Hetch Hetchy Comprehensive Planning District with about 840 acres of Village Residential. At an estimated 5.1 units per acre, they would add another 9,100 units in northeast Modesto when built-out. City staff indicates that it is likely that construction of some of these units could occur within the next decade. In addition, there are two more specific plan areas which are expected to be developed in the longer-term: The Johansen-Empire North Specific Plan Areas (SPAs). Both SPAs are located southeast of the Tivoli Project, east of Claus Road, generally between Scenic Drive and Yosemite Boulevard. City staff estimates that these two SPAs would permit a combined total of 3,874 dwelling units, which, at 80% build-out (3,099) and 2.9 persons per household, could result in future population of about 8,987 persons in these plan areas. These units would be in addition to the build out of the remainder of the Tivoli and Pelandale-McHenry Specific Plan Areas. Keyser Marston Associates Page 16 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- SECTION IV. RETAIL MARKET CONDITIONS Overall population and economic trends have been favorable for retail conditions in the City of Modesto. Demographic Trends Claritas estimates a total 2006 population of about 210,000 in the City of Modesto, an increase of roughly 11% from the total of 189,000 in 2000. By 2011, the City’s population is projected by Claritas (adjusted with residential information update from the City) to grow to 223,000, or an 7% growth from 2006. These growth rates approximate those for the State of California as a whole over the two periods: The state’s population expanded by about 10% between 2000 and 2006 and is projected to grow an estimated 5% between 2006 and 2011. Key factors that are spurring the population growth in the City are as follows: Modesto is centrally located in the Central Valley and is directly linked to the Bay Area via Highway 580/132 and to its distribution markets via Highway 99. The City is strategically located in respect to three of the most rapidly growing regions in the State: Stockton/Sacramento to the north, Clovis/Fresno to the south, Tracy/Tri-Valley to the west, and thus is well-positioned to share in that growth. The City is more affordable than communities in the Bay Area. The costs of living and doing business in Modesto are generally lower than those in competitive coastal communities. The proposed Kaiser Permanente facility to the west and the new U.C. Merced campus south of the City are anticipated to constitute important demand sources for residential, office and commercial uses in Modesto. Building permits for new residential construction have totaled 9,042 permits, or an average of about 1,300 permits a year, in the City between 1998 and November 2005, as shown on Table 6. The population growth conditions discussed previously are reflected in the favorable retail trends evidenced in Modesto for 2000, 2002, and 2004 (the last complete year of taxable sales data available from the State Board of Equalization), as shown on the accompanying Table 7 and described below. Sales are shown for convenience stores (principally food and drug) and comparison goods stores (traditional shoppers’ goods such as apparel, furniture and home furnishings, and the specialty group): Keyser Marston Associates Page 17 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- Retail sales in Modesto have increased from $1.5 billion to $1.9 billion between 2000 and 2004, for an overall increase of approximately 25%. In the State of California as a whole, the increase in sales was about 20% over the same period. Notable increases in retail sales in Modesto have occurred in all comparison retail categories, from a 45% increase in apparel sales to 15% increase in general merchandise sales. With respect to illustrative tenancies that could be part of the Tivoli project: Lowe’s is a purveyor of building materials, and therefore their store would open in an expanding market marked by strong activity in the construction and home building sector in the City; sales of building materials have increased 43% between 2000 and 2004. Michael’s is part of the specialty retail category, and sales in that segment of the retail market, as noted in Table 7, have increased more than 19% between 2000 and 2004. Marshall’s is a major apparel retailer; sales in that sector of the market have increased more than 45% over the four-year period. Sales per outlet have increased modestly in Modesto while sales per outlet in the State as a whole have declined between 2000 and 2004 as shown in Table 7 and summarized below: Taxable Retail Sales Per Outlet 2000 2004 % Change City of Modesto $841,676 $865,858 Stanislaus County $674,054 $725,327 California $587,670 $567,743 As shown, sales per outlet in Modesto have exceed those for both Stanislaus County and the State, and the differential has increased over the period. In 2000, sales per outlet in Modesto were 25% higher than those in the County and 43% higher than outlets in the State; by 2004, sales per outlet in Modesto stores were 19% higher than per outlet sales in the County and 52% higher than those in the State as a whole. Therefore, on average, retail establishments in Modesto are achieving higher sales volumes than retail establishments in the State as a whole. Similarly, on a per capita basis, Modesto’s 2004 sales for the selected categories of retail goods (as shown on Table 5) were about $6,400, compared to the State average of $4,500 despite the fact that household income is higher statewide than in the City; this indicates that there has been a significant inflow of sales into Modesto from surrounding communities. Keyser Marston Associates Page 18 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- According to Duke Leffler of PMZ Commercial, a major real estate firm in Modesto, commercial land values in the City have increased approximately 15% to 20% in the past five years. This indicates a positive demand for sites and is consistent with a healthy market. Mr. Leffler also indicated that retail rents for well-located and appropriately configured retail space is in the range of $2.50 to $3.00 per square foot per month, net, for shop space and around $1.00 per square foot for big box users in Modesto. He estimated that rents have increased by approximately 20% to 30% in recent years, which is also consistent with strong market conditions. The vacancy rate in retail space in Modesto is low. According to an available commercial space listing provided by Rich Rand from Centerra Capital, there are only two blocks of space of more than15,000 square feet currently available in Modesto: The first is a 34,542 square feet in an older, poorly-located/configured center on McHenry Avenue. The second is 40,000-square feet in a new center opening on Crows Landing Road in Modesto. Mr. Rand estimates retail vacancy to be in the 7% to 8% range, and lower if the two large blocks of space are excluded. Since this issue is particularly significant in this evaluation in respect to urban decay, it is addressed separately below. Vacancy and Retenanting of Space The ability to recycle space is a key factor affecting vacancy, shuttering of stores, and potential urban decay. As described below, there is currently little retail vacancy in Modesto, and competitive space that does come on the market is quickly recycled (re- tenanted) by retail users. Brokers contacted by KMA indicate that there are no significant blocks of contiguous retail space available in the City. Such space, when available, generally leases rapidly. The vacancy of 34,542 square feet at 3848 McHenry Avenue has been attributed by the broker to poor access and location of the space (set back from McHenry frontage by landscaping and signage) as well as the difficult size of the space (too small for a single anchor and too large for most shops). The 40,000 square feet of newly constructed space at Crow Landing, which could be subdivided into smaller spaces, is anticipated to lease quickly once the center is completed. In the vicinity of the subject site, brokers indicate that vacant space is in high demand, The Save Mart Center at Oakdale and Floyd has no vacancy, and there is reportedly a waiting list of interested tenants. According to Mr. Rand from Centerra Capital, there is hardly any vacancy north of Briggsmore Avenue. Keyser Marston Associates Page 19 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- In even the healthiest of markets, there are properties that remain vacant due to physical issues, an inability or unwillingness of the owner to invest, disputes within the ownership entity, and other factors that preclude successful deployment of the real estate asset. The fact that a property may be vacant is not, in those situations, an indicator of market conditions. As indicated, the unique situations described for the two largest blocks of vacant commercial space above are not indicative of market conditions. As noted below, there are local examples of successful retenanting of competitive space when that space has been put on the market by owners who are able and willing enter into lease transactions, in northeast Modesto and in other parts of the City. According to Thomas Solomon of CoSol Commercial Real Estate in Modesto, in the vicinity of the subject site, a 18,000 square foot Thrifty store space at Oakdale/ Briggsmore was re-tenanted by a Big Lot store, and a 21,000 square foot New Deal Supermarket at Oakdale/Scenic was recycled into a Grocery Outlet store. Within approximately the last five to six years, available retail spaces along McHenry Avenue have been recycled for retail. These include 80,000 square feet of the 110,000 square foot Montgomery store leasehold space, which was purchased by Burlington Coat Factory; the 24,000 square foot Circuit City store, which was converted to the California Furniture Company; and reuse of a theater by Safeway. Near the Vintage Faire Shopping Center along Highway 99, a 60,000 square foot Best Buy store was re- tenanted as Babies ‘R Us. The conclusion from visual inspection and from analysis of the data pertaining to retail vacancy and re-tenanting is that there is little competitive retail space available for occupancy in this market, and that space that does become available is in strong demand by tenants and rapidly released. Available space that has not been quickly released is usually problematic (poor location/configuration, unwilling landlords, etc.) and therefore would not be leased regardless of market conditions. There are few large sites currently zoned and/or readily available for regional commercial uses in Modesto. In nearby Riverbank, once the Crossroads Center is completed, commercially-zoned land within the city limits would be built out. Oakdale currently has no large regional retail sites and has adopted an ordinance with requirements that effectively discourages the location of big box projects in the city. Therefore, it appears that significant overbuilding of the market with regional retail uses will largely be precluded by limited site availability. Keyser Marston Associates Page 20 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- SECTION V. SHARE OF SALES BY PROPOSED RETAIL FACILITIES We conclude that the proposed Tivoli Regional Commercial Project may impact some of the older and marginal retail uses on McHenry Avenue but is not likely to have significant impact on other existing commercial nodes in the City. In an analysis of retail impact, it is useful for reviewers to grasp the magnitude of the subject space in comparison to the existing inventory. For the Tivoli RCP, the amount of new space represented by the proposed power center would be a significant increase in the existing retail inventory in northeast Modesto and a minimal increase in the existing retail inventory in the City as a whole. Based on KMA’s research, discussion with brokers, and visual survey, there are an estimated 1.5± million square feet of retail space (excluding food and drug stores) in northeast Modesto, inclusive of the concentration of retail along McHenry Avenue and the Crossroads Center in Riverbank. In sum, the approximately 900,000 square feet of retail square footage proposed in the Tivoli Specific Plan at the Tivoli RCP would equal approximately 60% of the total inventory of retail space (excluding food and drug stores) in northeast Modesto. On a citywide basis, the proposed power center is estimated to represent approximately 18% of the 5.0 million square feet of retail store inventory (excluding food and drug stores and auto-related facilities) in Modesto. Market share can also be expressed as a percentage of sales. Assuming average sales of $350 per square foot for the approximately 900,000 square foot Tivoli RCP proposed in the Tivoli Specific Plan, total annual retail sales for the center would be in the range of $300 million. Total retail sales (excluding food, drugs, and auto sales) for stores in the northeast quadrant is estimated at $420 million, as shown on Tables 4a and 4b (unescalated). (This is necessarily a general estimate as the City does not tabulate retail sales for northeast Modesto from the taxable sales data provided by the State Board of Equalization.) Thus, sales at the power center proposed in the Tivoli Specific Plan would represent an approximately 70% increase in current estimated sales in the northeast quadrant. On a citywide basis, the $300 million annual sales estimated for the proposed power center would represents about 18% of the $1.7± billion annual retail sales (excluding food, drugs, and auto sales) in the City. These percentage shares of the market imply that the power center proposed in the Tivoli Specific Plan at the Tivoli RCP site could potentially impact existing stores in the northeast quadrant of the City but minimally on the City as a whole. The extent of the impact on existing stores in northeast Modesto is expanded on below. Keyser Marston Associates Page 21 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- Trade Area The most significant impacts would most likely be felt by the older, marginal stores/ centers located along McHenry Avenue that may be vulnerable to new competition. Currently, there are eight shopping centers listed in the 2006 Shopping Center Directory as being located on McHenry Avenue, as follows: Existing Retail Centers on McHenry Avenue Center Name Yr. 1st Opened (Renovations) GLA Sq. ft Anchors Briggsmore S.C. 1965 (2000) 222,500 Briggsmore Theater, Safeway Food 4 Less S.C. 1989 150,000 Food 4 Less Marshall’s Plaza 1990 86,200 Marshall’s McHenry Village 1955 (1991) 310,000 Keller’s Gifts Mervyn’s McHenry Mall 1972 86,650 Mervyn’s Northland S.C. 1963 N.A. N.A. The Promenade 1988 118,485 Barnes & Noble, Copeland’s Sports, California Living Furniture Unnamed S.C. 1979 18,281 N.A. As shown in the table above, except for the Briggsmore Shopping Center, all the centers are at least ten years old. The McHenry Village is essentially an unanchored specialty center as its single “anchor”, Keller’s Gifts, is an 18,000 sq. ft local retailer and thus has limited draw. The center is also tenanted by a mix of small, local retail stores (jewelers, sporting goods, gifts/cards, candies/specialty food), retail services (shoe repair, salons/nails, financial offices), art galleries, and food (restaurants/cafes). As such, McHenry Village functions essentially as a neighborhood- or a community-oriented center. Marshall’s Plaza and Mervyn’s McHenry Mall are small centers with less than 100,000 sq. ft GLA (Gross Leasable Area) and are single-store anchored centers. The Promenade is the strongest center, as it is anchored by two large national chain tenants: Barnes & Noble (21,353 sq. ft) and Copeland’s Sports (39,334 sq. ft). The remaining centers are anchored a grocery store or unanchored. There are also several free- standing major big box/large promotional and discount retailers in the McHenry Corridor, such as a Target and Petsmart store. With small centers, dated facilities, and few national-chain anchors, retail on McHenry Avenue is vulnerable to new competition. However, McHenry Avenue is a heavily traversed, primary north-south arterial. Historically, it is the major strip retail location in Keyser Marston Associates Page 22 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- the City of Modesto and remains today a well-established retail corridor. The area is currently in transition with some major retail turnovers, but the large chain retailers that are currently located in the area, such as Barnes and Noble and Copeland Sports, appear to be performing well. (In general, retail centers at the northern end of the McHenry Avenue corridor tend to be larger and newer than those at the southern end, which are generally smaller and older centers.) The proposed Tivoli RCP may accelerate the current turnover of the older and weaker retailers in the corridor, but it is anticipated that a sufficient number of healthy retailers will continue at their current location on McHenry Avenue, thus maintaining the corridor as a significant retail location in the City. Downtown Modesto The vulnerability and fragility of downtown retailing is well-recognized and well- documented as a national phenomenon. First came the competition from the suburban regional shopping center and the decision by the department stores to follow their customers to the suburbs. More recently, the competition has emerged from big box and other large and medium format stores in suburban locations. Downtown retailing in many downtowns in the country and in California has never rebounded from this competition, and as a result a number of downtowns are characterized by high vacancy, an inability to recycle the older properties, and attendant urban decay. However, the types of retail currently existing in downtown Modesto are highly differentiated from the big box or promotional/discount mass merchandisers, and there is little/no prospect that downtown will ever be a major venue for the sale of a significant portion of retail goods purchased by area residents. Downtown retailers typically market to the individual, walk-in shoppers, notably downtown employees and visitors, and thus are generally smaller and pedestrian-oriented in scale, more upper-end in price points and highly selective in merchandising. The retail component of the Tenth Street Place in downtown Modesto, for example, includes approximately 44,000 square feet of retail space, which is comprised mostly of clothing stores, gift shops, art galleries, a number of quality restaurants, and an 18-screen Brenden theater. This project has been credited with increasing pedestrian activity downtown and attracting a number of new restaurants to the area. The Gallo Center of the Arts under-construction is also attracting several wine-related uses to the downtown. These and similar types of downtown establishments are unlikely to be impacted by power center retailers at the proposed Tivoli RCP. Other Submarkets in Modesto The only other major regional retail submarket in Modesto is along Highway 99. Most of the big box and promotional/discount stores along the highway corridor (Northpointe, Vintage Commons) are relatively new and/or are located in new centers along the highway. For many retailers, the Highway 99 store is the single, primary store location Keyser Marston Associates Page 23 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- serving the greater Modesto area (a few, such as Costco and Lowe’s, have a second store location in Turlock.) A visual survey of these stores/centers indicates that they are stabilized successful operations. Given the large regional market that is being served by the stores along this segment of the highway and the strength of their critical mass, it is highly unlikely that their performance will be impacted to any meaningful extent by the proposed Tivoli RCP in northeast Modesto. In conclusion, the increments of regional retail space at the Tivoli RCP as proposed in the Tivoli Specific Plan could potentially impact some of the older, weaker stores along McHenry Avenue. The impact of the project on downtown Modesto and other retailers in the Modesto markets is expected to be minimal. Keyser Marston Associates Page 24 19827.001/001-003.doc ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLES ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 1. TIVOLI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PROJECT, CITY OF MODESTO ILLUSTRATIVE TENANT PROGRAM FOR A POWER CENTER Typical Size Illustrative Tenants BIG BOX/ANCHORS Discount Stores 125,000 SF Target Kohl's Wal-Mart K-Mart Warehouse 160,000 SF Costco Home Improvement 110,000 SF Home Depot Lowes Orchard Supply Hardware MAJORS/SUBMAJORS Book Stores 35,000 SF Borders Barnes & Noble Office Supplies 25,000 SF Office Depot Staples Electronics 35,000 SF Best Buy Circuit City CompUSA Discount Apparel 3,500 SF Old Navy 30,000 SF Ross 32,000 SF Marshalls 60,000 SF Mervyn's 15,000 SF Men's Wearhouse 35,000 SF Rack Pet Stores 20,000 SF Petco PetsMart Home Furnishings 30,000 SF Bed, Bath & Beyond 30,000 SF Linens 'n Things 18,300 SF Cost Plus World Market Arts, Crafts & Party Supplies 18,200 SF Michael's 15,000 SF Beverly's 10,000 SF Party America Sporting Goods 12,000 SF Copeland Sports Big 5 Sporting Goods REI larger sq footage Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.; 19827.001/001-002.xls; PC Program; 7/19/2006; kh/mc/dm Page 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 1. TIVOLI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PROJECT, CITY OF MODESTO ILLUSTRATIVE TENANT PROGRAM FOR A POWER CENTER Typical Size Illustrative Tenants SHOPS Cell Phone Stores 2,000 SF Verizon Nextel AT&T Wireless Apparel 6,000 SF Dress Barn Fashion Bug Services 1,500 SF UPS Store 4,000 SF Bank Branch 1,500 SF Dry Cleaning 1,000 SF Nail Salon Shoes 4,500 SF Payless Shoes Famous Footwear Home Accessories 10,000 SF Pier 1 10,000 SF Matress Discounters 6,500 SF Ethan Allen Automotive 7,000 SF Kragen Auto Parts Pennzoil Oil Change Video Rental / Music 4,700 SF Blockbuster 10,000 SF Tower Records FOOD Restaurants 7,000 SF California Pizza Kitchen 6,000 SF Outback Steakhouse 7,000 SF PF Chang's China Bistro Fast Food 1,500 SF Quizno's Subs 3,000 SF In & Out Burger 2,500 SF Baja Express Coffee Shops 1,600 SF Starbucks Tully's Peet's Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.; 19827.001/001-002.xls; PC Program; 7/19/2006; kh/mc/dm Page 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 2. TIVOLI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PROJECT, CITY OF MODESTO REPRESENTATION OF BIG BOX AND PROMOTIONAL/DISCOUNT RETAIL TENANTS IN MODESTO TRADE AREA Category NE NW SE SW Riverbank Ceres Salida Electronics Circuit City 1 CompUSA 1 Good Guys 1 Fry's Electronics Home Furnishings Bed, Bath & Beyond 1 Cost Plus World Market 1 Ethan Allen 1 Linens 'n Things 1 Pier 1 Imports 1 Office Equipment Office Depot 1 Office Max 1 1 Staples 1 Sporting Goods Big 5 Sporting Goods 1 1 Copeland Sports 1 REI SportMart Valley Sporting Goods 1 Home Improvement Lowes 1 Home Depot 1 1 1 OSH 1 1 Ace Hardware 1 1 Book Stores Barnes & Noble 1* Borders 1 General Merch Wal-Mart 1 1 Target 1* 1 1 K-Mart 1 Big Lots 1 1 1 Dollar Tree 1 2 1 1 1 Warehouse Costco 1 Sam's Pet Supplies Petco 1 Petsmart 1 Pet Barn 1 1 The quadrants are roughly defined by McHenry Ave. in the N-S direction and Rte. 132 in the E-W direction CITY OF MODESTO (QUADRANTS)1 Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.; 19827.001/001-002x.xls; Retail Presence; 7/19/2006; mc/dm Page 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 2. TIVOLI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PROJECT, CITY OF MODESTO REPRESENTATION OF BIG BOX AND PROMOTIONAL/DISCOUNT RETAIL TENANTS IN MODESTO TRADE AREA Category NE NW SE SW Riverbank Ceres Salida CITY OF MODESTO (QUADRANTS)1 Arts & Crafts Michael's 1 Joann Fabrics 1 Beverly's 1 Party City 1 Discount Apparel / Shoes Ross 1 1 TJ Maxx 1 Old Navy Mervyn's 1* Marshalls 1* Men's Wearhouse 1 DSW Kohls 1 1 (Planned) Burlington Coat Factory 1 Shoe Pavillion 1 Western Warehouse 1 Factory 2 U 1 1 Rack Video/DVD Rental Blockbuster 3 2 1 1 Hollywood Video 1 1 1 Toys / Children Toys r Us 1 Babies r Us 1 Auto Retail Kragen 3 1 1 Auto Zone 1 1 1 1 Pep Boys 1 American Tire 1 Grocery Stores Save Mart 4 3 1 Safeway 1 Raley's 1 1 1 Trader Joe's 1 Richland Market 2 1 WinCo Foods 1 Drug Stores Long's 1 1 1 1 1 1 Walgreens 1 2 2 1 1 Rite Aid 1 1 1 1 * = Located on McHenry Avenue. Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.; 19827.001/001-002x.xls; Retail Presence; 7/19/2006; mc/dm Page 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 3. TIVOLI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PROJECT, CITY OF MODESTO SUMMARY OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS POWER CENTER CITY OF STANISLAUS STATE OF TRADE AREA MODESTO COUNTY CALIFORNIA POPULATION 1990 Census 112,042 167,111 370,522 29,760,021 2000 Census 133,137 188,856 446,997 33,871,648 % Change ('90-'00) 19% 13% 21% 14% 2006 Estimate 155,186 209,494 510,232 37,104,841 1 % Change ('00-'06) 17% 11% 14% 10% 2011 Projection 2 169,590 223,250 560,918 38,887,860 % Change ('06-'011) 9% 7% 10% 5% 2006 ETHNICITY White 72.0% 65.2% 64.8% 57.0% Black or African American 3.0% 4.4% 2.9% 6.4% Asian & Pacific Islander 4.9% 7.2% 5.1% 12.3% Other 20.0% 23.3% 27.3% 24.4% Hispanic Origin 27.4% 30.6% 37.7% 35.3% NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS 2000 Census 46,967 64,959 145,146 11,502,870 2006 Estimate 53,778 71,312 163,395 12,284,895 % Change ('00-'06) 15% 10% 13% 7% 2011 Projection 3 58,278 76,718 178,382 12,982,281 % Change ('06-'011) 8% 8% 9% 6% Average HH Size 2.84 2.89 3.08 2.91 No. HH > $50,000 27,318 51% 38,923 55% 88,457 54% 5,733,028 47% No. HH > $75,000 26,460 49% 32,389 45% 74,938 46% 6,551,867 53% % Owner-Occupied Units 65% 59% 62% 57% Est. 2006 AVG. HOUSEHOLD INCOME $65,662 $59,031 $59,632 $74,936 Est. 2006 PER CAPITA INCOME $21,890 $20,286 $19,269 $25,551 Source: Claritas ( U.S. Census 2000 based), unless othewise indicated. 1 Adjusted to reflect DOF's 1/1/2005 population estimate, increased by the average growth between 2000 and 2006 (or approximately 2 Adjusted per residential unit estimate from City staff (See Map 5) 3 Assumed citywide average of 2.9 persons per household Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.; 19827.001/001-002.xls; DemoSum; 7/19/2006; kh/mc/dm Page 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 4a. TIVOLI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PROJECT, CITY OF MODESTO ESTIMATED REGIONAL RETAIL MARKET POTENTIAL - 2008 (In 2006 Dollars) Total Power Center Trade Area Population 161,330 Per Capita Income1 $22,000 real growth) Gross Income $3,549,260,000 Trade Area Estimated Trade Residual Typical Additional Establishment Type Potential Area Sales (2008)3 Potential Productivity Development Comparison Goods Apparel Stores $65,400,383 ($62,800,000) $2,600,383 $325 8,000 SF General Merchandise Stores2 $142,391,635 ($76,100,000) $66,291,635 $300 221,000 SF Specialty Stores $188,836,907 ($179,400,000) $9,436,907 $350 27,000 SF Home Furnishings & Appliances $63,272,236 ($9,400,000) $53,872,236 $350 154,000 SF Subtotal Comparison Goods $459,901,162 ($327,700,000) $132,201,162 410,000 SF Building Materials $131,727,437 ($92,200,000) $39,527,437 $425 93,000 SF Total Retail $591,628,599 ($419,900,000) $171,728,599 503,000 SF (Plus) Allowance for Supplemental Groceries and Drugs 10,000 SF (Plus) Allowance for Eating & Drinking 25,000 SF Total Retail with Eating & Drinking 538,000 SF 1. Based on 2006 estimates provided by the Claritas, escalated at 1.0% per year. 2. Adjusted to exclude Department Store share, which is assumed to represent approxiamtely 23% of expenditure potential in the general merchandise category. 3. Based on estimates of building square footage of stores in NE Modesto (including totally tenanted Riverbank Crossroads Center) and typical sales/sq.ft. Assumes non-escalated 2006 sales. Area Market Penetration in Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.; 19827.001/001-002.xls; Potential (08); 7/19/2006; mc/dm Page 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 4b. TIVOLI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PROJECT, CITY OF MODESTO ESTIMATED REGIONAL RETAIL MARKET POTENTIAL - 2011 (In 2006 Dollars) Total Power Center Trade Area Population 169,590 Per Capita Income1 $23,000 real growth) Gross Income $3,900,570,000 Trade Area Estimated Trade Residual Typical Additional Establishment Type Potential Area Sales (2011)3 Potential Productivity Development Comparison Goods Apparel Stores $71,873,791 ($62,800,000) $9,073,791 $325 28,000 SF General Merchandise Stores2 $156,485,729 ($76,100,000) $80,385,729 $300 268,000 SF Specialty Stores $207,528,210 ($179,400,000) $28,128,210 $350 80,000 SF Home Furnishings & Appliances $69,534,998 ($9,400,000) $60,134,998 $350 172,000 SF Subtotal Comparison Goods $505,422,729 ($327,700,000) $177,722,729 548,000 SF Building Materials $144,765,977 ($92,200,000) $52,565,977 $425 124,000 SF Total Retail $650,188,705 ($419,900,000) $230,288,705 672,000 SF (Plus) Allowance for Supplemental Groceries and Drugs 10,000 SF (Plus) Allowance for Eating & Drinking 25,000 SF Total Retail with Eating & Drinking 707,000 SF 1. Based on 2006 estimates provided by the Claritas, escalated at 1.0% per year. 2. Adjusted to exclude Department Store share, which is assumed to represent approxiamtely 23% of expenditure potential in the general merchandise category. 3. Based on estimates of building square footage of stores in NE Modesto (including totally tenanted Riverbank Crossroads Center) and typical sales/sq.ft. Assumes non-escalated 2006 sales. Area Market Penetration in Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.; 19827.001/001-002.xls; Potential (11); 7/19/2006; mc/dm Page 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 5. TIVOLI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PROJECT, CITY OF MODESTO PER OUTLET AND CAPITA RETAIL PERMITS AND SALES - 2004 Population (DOF - 1/1/05) 207,634 504,482 36,810,358 Sales As % Taxable Sales Taxable Sales Taxable Sales Taxable Sales Taxable Sales Taxable Sales of State PCI of Selected Retail Categories Per Outlet Per Capita Per Outlet Per Capita Per Outlet Per Capita $25,000 Apparel Stores $767,342 $713 $600,804 $382 $434,598 $461 1.8% General Merchandise (Excl. Drugs) $10,094,102 $2,382 $6,675,261 $1,522 $4,297,141 $1,303 5.2% Specialty Stores $355,541 $1,594 $261,571 $994 $238,091 $1,330 5.3% Home Furnishings & Appliances $739,908 $656 $551,919 $394 $506,791 $446 1.8% Building Materials $5,108,610 $1,009 $3,797,201 $1,009 $3,172,445 $928 3.7% Total for Selected Categories $17,065,503 $6,354 $11,886,757 $4,301 $8,649,067 $4,467 17.9% City of Modesto Stanislaus County State of California Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.; 19827.001/001-002.xls; Per Capita; 7/19/2006; kh/mc/dm Page 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- / TABLE 6. TIVOLI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PROJECT, CITY OF MODESTO RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS - NEW CONSTRUCTION RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS CITY OF BALANCE STANISLAUS MODESTO COUNTY COUNTY 1998 775 1,315 2,090 1999 963 1,347 2,310 2000 1,676 1,737 3,413 2001 1,277 1,917 3,194 2002 1,084 2,025 3,109 2003 908 3,260 4,168 2004 639 3,964 4,603 11/2005 1 1,720 Total 1998 - 11/2005 9,042 15,565 22,887 Average/Year 1,292 2,224 3,270 Source: Building Industry Association 1 City of Modesto website - Activity Report Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.; 19827.001/001-002.xls; Resid. Permits; 7/19/2006; mc/dm Page 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 7. TIVOLI REGIONAL COMMERCIAL PROJECT, CITY OF MODESTO TAXABLE RETAIL SALES TRENDS - 2000, 2002, 2004 2000 2002 2004 Change 2000 to 2004 City of Modesto # Permits Taxable Sales # Permits Taxable Sales # Permits Taxable Sales # Permits % Change Taxable Sales % Change Apparel Stores 153 $101,835,000 155 $129,773,000 193 $148,097,000 40 26% $46,262,000 45% General Merchandise (Excl. Drugs) 37 431,775,000 41 460,982,000 49 494,611,000 12 32% $62,836,000 15% Specialty Stores 702 279,029,000 760 305,621,000 931 331,009,000 229 33% $51,980,000 19% Home Furnishings & Appliances 160 105,010,000 171 131,234,000 184 136,143,000 24 15% $31,133,000 30% Eating & Drinking Places 414 198,766,000 436 235,337,000 464 258,357,000 50 12% $59,591,000 30% Food 1 141 111,684,000 154 119,423,000 161 133,058,000 20 14% $21,374,000 19% Drugs 1 30 43,396,000 29 46,456,000 30 43,712,000 0 0% $316,000 1% Building Materials 41 146,380,000 37 173,461,000 41 209,453,000 0 0% $63,073,000 43% Other Retail Sales 102 80,308,000 97 90,675,000 102 111,484,000 0 0% $31,176,000 39% Retail Stores Total 2 1,780 $1,498,183,000 1,880 $1,692,962,000 2,155 $1,865,924,000 375 21% $367,741,000 25% Per Outlet $841,676 $900,512 $865,858 $24,182 3% Stanislaus County 2 3,681 $2,481,192,000 3,966 $2,859,042,000 4,583 $3,324,173,000 902 25% $842,981,000 34% Per Outlet $674,054 $720,888 $725,327 $51,273 8% Modesto As % County Total 48% 60% 47% 59% 47% 56% 42% 44% California 2 349,057 $205,130,453,000 388,827 $213,862,809,000 434,429 $246,643,832,000 85,372 24% $41,513,379,000 20% Per Outlet $587,670 $550,020 $567,743 -$19,928 Modesto As % State Total 0.5% 0.7% 0.5% 0.8% 0.5% 0.8% 0.4% Source: State Board of Equalization 1 Unadjusted for total sales, assuming taxable sales at 65% for Drugs and 35% for food. 2 Excludes automible dealers and gaoline service stations, as these outlets are not "retail." Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. 001-002.xls Retail Trends; 7/19/2006; mc Page 35 ---PAGE BREAK--- MAPS ---PAGE BREAK--- Modesto Riverbank Tivoli Project Site Claus Rd Oakdale Rd Patterson Rd Ceres Salida Oakdale Briggsmore Ave McHenry Ave Escalon Future Pelandale Expressway 99 99 132 132 Oakdale Waterford Hwy Ripon SAN JOAQUIN CO. STANISLAUS CO. U V 108 U V 120 ± 0 3 6 1.5 Miles Map 1 Tivoli Project Vicinity City of Modesto, CA Source: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 37 ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL LAND USE DIAGRAM 0 800 FEET . T I V O L I S P E C I F I C P L A N P R O J E C T SOURCE: Dahlin Group, Turnstone Consulting $5 # # # # 342%%43#!0% 2/5.$ !"/54 05",)# ).&2!3425#452% 4%3 23# 0/ 6,$2 %6,$2 6,$2 6,$2 23# # %6,$2 %6,$2 OAKDALE AVENUE CLARATINA AVENUE SYLVAN AVENUE 02/0/3%$ "53 452. ROSELLE AVENUE MC REYNOLDS AVENUE Map 2 Tivoli Site Plan City of Modesto, CA Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 38 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XY XYXY XY XY XY XY XY XY XYXY XY XY XY XY Ceres Marketplace- Staples, Home Depot K-Mart Big 5 Orchard Plaza - OSH, Office Max Office Depot Beverly's Crossroads Regional Ctr- Target, Home Depot, Kohl's Burlington CF TIVOLI SITE Kohl's Modesto Ceres Riverbank Salida WinCo OSH Ross Petco Target Petsmart Toys R Us Babies R Us Scenic Place - Ross The Promenade- Barnes & Noble, Copeland Sports Vintage Plaza- Big 5 Home Depot Ctr Men's Wearhouse Marshalls Plaza Vintage Commons- Target, Office Max Bed Bath & Beyond, Best Buy, Good Guys Briggsmore Plaza - Big Lots Central Valley Plaza- Wal-Mart Factory 2-U, Western Warehouse McHenry Mall Northpointe Shopping - Costco, Lowe's, Cost Plus, Pier 1 0 2 4 1 Miles ± Map 4 Big Box Retail Locations City of Modesto, CA Source: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- CLAUS RD YOSEMITE BLV SYLVAN AVE MILNES RD FLOYD AVE H ST SCENIC DR MC HENRY AVE E BRIGGSMORE AVE COFFEE RD E ORANGEBURG AVE ROSELLE AVE PARKER RD 9TH ST J ST N SANTA FE AVE CLARATINA AVE EL VISTA AVE L ST LA LOMA AVE PELANDALE AVE LAKEWOOD AVE D ST NEEDHAM AVE TERMINAL AVE STANDIFORD AVE W BRIGGSMORE AVE W ORANGEBURG AVE DOWNEY AVE OAKDALE RD G ST G ST MC HENRY AVE E BRIGGSMORE AVE FLOYD AVE CLAUS RD E BRIGGSMORE AVE MC HENRY AVE COFFEE RD E ORANGEBURG AVE YOSEMITE BLV SCENIC DR LA LOMA AVE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 11 10 8 2 3 4 5 6 1 9 10 11 12 1 A A 1 2 3 4 B C 2 3 4 Active Projects as of March 28, 2006 1: Four Parcels, DU TBD 2: Rose Villa, 123 DU 3: Pinnacles at Sunrise, 59 DU 4: Burkshire Estates II, 45 DU 5: Millbrook Manor, 14 DU 6: Senior Housing, DU TBD 7: Multi-Family, 60 DU 8: Graham Estates, 10 DU 9: Condo Conversion, DU TBD 10: Apartments, 11 DU 11: Gated Subdivision, 11 DU Total DU (estimate): 333 Final Maps Recorded 1-05 to 12-05 1: Evergreen, 60 DU 2: Oakdale Park, 11 DU 3: Kodiak Village III, 23 DU 4: Kodiak Village II, 61 DU 5: Kodiak Village, 201 DU 6: Hacienda del Sol #1 (MF) 86 DU 7: Village Ranch #1 (MF) 70 DU 8: Brooks Landing (MF) 232 DU 9: Lagos, 50 DU 10: Canterbury Estates, 70 DU 11: Pappillon Park, 6 DU 12: Trails at Dry Creek, 21 DU Total DU: 891 Tenative Maps Still Outstanding 1: Hacienda del Sol, 86 DU 2: Village Ranch 1, 69 DU 3: Bhatti Estates, 12 DU 4: Tarantella Estates, 6 DU Total DU: 173 Tenative Maps Approved 1-05 to 12-05 1: The Plaza, 165 DU 2: Ramirez Estates, 8 DU 3: Falling Leaf, 314 DU 4: Scenic Bend, 12 DU Total DU: 499 Specific Plan Areas A: Tivoli SPA, 3,200 DU (est) Total DU (estimate): 3,200 Projects Beyond 2008 A: Pelandale-McHenry SPA, 386 DU (est) B-C: Johansen-Empire North, 3,874 DU (combined estimate) Total DU (estimate): 4,260 07-06-06 7 8 MAP 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D.1: TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSEMENT FOR THE TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment For the Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Modesto, California Final Dowling Associates, Inc. Oakland, California October 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page i Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 5 Project Description 5 Analysis 7 Study 7 Roadway 9 Roadway 9 Analysis 9 Report Organization 10 CHAPTER 2 - ANALYSIS 12 1. Validation of Year 2025 Cumulative Growth Near the 12 2. Estimating Year Future Peak Hour Baseline Intersection Volumes 12 3. Refining the Future Forecasts 12 5. Estimating the Year 2012 and 2017 Background Condition 13 6. Estimating Project Trip Generation 14 7. Estimating the Project Peak Hour 14 Trip 15 Figure 3 - Trip 17 Level of Service Methodologies 18 Signalized Intersection 18 Unsignalized Intersections and 19 Vehicle Queuing at 20 Roadway 20 CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS 22 Roadway 22 Transit 23 Modesto Area Express (MAX) 23 Stanislaus Regional Transit 23 Pedestrian and Bicycle 24 Existing Intersection Levels of 24 Signalized Intersections 29 Existing Stop Control Intersections That Meet Delay or Peak Hour Warrant... 29 Existing Stop Control Intersections That Do Not Meet Warrants 29 Existing Roadway Segment Levels of 30 Sub-Standard Roadway Segment Operations 30 CHAPTER 4 - YEAR 2012 CONDITIONS 31 Year 2012 Baseline Transportation System 31 Roadway Segment 31 Local Intersection Improvements 31 Year 2012 Project Related Transportation 32 Year 2012 Project 32 Trip Generation 33 ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page ii Trip 37 Trip Assignment 37 2012 Baseline Conditions 41 Signalized Intersections 41 Stop Controlled 41 Roundabout Intersections 42 2012 Project 42 Signalized Intersections 42 Stop Controlled 42 Roundabout Intersections 42 Stop Control Intersections That Meet Delay or Peak Hour 42 Year 2012 Roadway Segment Levels of Service 43 2012 Baseline Conditions 43 2012 Project 43 CHAPTER 5 - YEAR 2017 CONDITIONS 48 Year 2017 Baseline Transportation System 48 Year 2017 Project Related Transportation 48 Trip Generation 52 2017 Baseline Conditions 56 Signalized Intersections 56 Stop Controlled 56 Roundabout Intersections 57 2017 Project 57 Signalized Intersections 57 Stop Controlled 57 Roundabout Intersections 57 Stop Control Intersections That Meet Delay or Peak Hour 58 Year 2017 Roadway Segment Levels of Service 58 2017 Baseline Conditions 58 2017 Project 58 CHAPTER 6 - YEAR 2025 (CUMULATIVE) CONDITIONS 63 Year 2025 Baseline Transportation System 63 Year 2025 Project Related Transportation 63 Year 2025 Project 63 Trip Generation 63 2025 Baseline Conditions 71 Signalized Intersections 71 Stop Controlled 71 Roundabout Intersections 72 2025 Project 72 Signalized Intersections 72 Stop Controlled 72 ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page iii Roundabout Intersections 73 Stop Control Intersections That Meet Delay or Peak Hour 73 Year 2025 Roadway Segment Levels of Service 73 2025 Baseline Conditions 73 2025 Project 74 CHAPTER 7 – PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 79 Significant Impact Criteria 79 Year 2012 79 Deficient Intersections that are not 2012 Project Impacts 80 2012 Mitigation 81 Year 2017 84 Deficient Intersections that are not 2017 Project Impacts 85 2017 Mitigation 85 Year 2025 89 Deficient Intersections that are not 2025 Project Impacts 90 2025 Mitigation 91 CHAPTER 8 – SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE 94 Regional Shopping Center Site Access 94 On-Site Circulation Issues 94 95 96 List of Tables Table 1 - Proposed Project Land Use Table 2 - Trip Distribution Assumptions Table 3 - Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Table 4 - Unsignalized Intersection and Roundabout LOS Table 5 - Hourly Per Lane Roadway Segment Capacities Table 6 - Roadway Segment LOS Table 7 - Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Table 8 - Existing Peak Hour Roadway Levels of Service Table 9 - Project Trip Generation Rates Table 10 - Year 2012 Project Trip Table 11 - Comparison of 2012 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Levels of Table 12 - Comparison of 2012 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Roadway Table 13 - Year 2017 Project Trip Table 14 - Comparison of 2017 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Levels of Table 15 - Comparison of 2017 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Roadway Table 16 - Year 2025 Project Trip Table 17 - Comparison of 2025 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Levels of Table 18 - Comparison of 2025 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Roadway Table 19 - 2012 Intersection Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impacts 1 and Table 20 - 2012 Roadway Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impact Table 21 - 2017 Intersection Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impacts 4 and ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page iv Table 22 - 2017 Roadway Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impact Table 23 - 2025 Intersection Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impacts 7, 8 and Table 24 - 2025 Roadway Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impact ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 5 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the traffic impact assessment conducted for the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan located along the north side of Sylvan Avenue between Oakdale Road and Roselle Avenue in northeastern Modesto, California. The project location is shown on Figure 1. Project Description The proposed Specific Plan consists of 454 acres of vacant lands bounded by Sylvan Avenue on the south, Oakdale Road on the west, and Roselle Avenue to the east and the future extension of Claratina Avenue on the north. The planning area consists of proposed commercial and residential uses. As part of the Specific Plan area, HA Development has proposed a regional commercial shopping center, tentatively called "Vintage Square", at the northwestern corner of the Specific Plan area. Table 1 details the land use components and intensities proposed for the entire Specific Plan including Vintage Square (RSC-1). Table 1 - Proposed Project Land Use Summary Land Use Areas Density/FAR Units Gross Square Feet Residential Large Lot Estate 10.00 3 units/acre 30 Small Lot 165.20 8 units/acre 1,322 Medium Density 46.30 18 units/acre 833 High Density 40.00 24 units/acre 960 Commercial Neighborhood Commercial 8.00 0.3 sf./acre 104,544 Commercial 5.70 0.3 sf./acre 74,488 Regional Shopping Center (RSC-1) 46.50 0.30 sf./acre 600,000 Regional shopping Center (RSC-2) 22.3 0.30 sf./acre 300,000 Professional Office 2.40 0.3 sf./acre 31,363 Parks/Public Infrastructure 34.50 Elementary School (850 students) 13.50 Existing Uses 28.7 Streets (Internal) 30.9 Totals 454.00 3,145 1,110,395 Source: City of Modesto In this study, two different development levels for the Tivoli Specific Plan area were evaluated. These are: 1) 2012; and 2) project build-out. Project build out was analyzed for 2017 and 2025 (cumulative) scenarios. The basic difference between the 2012 and the project build-out level is that the 2012 project would include 724 fewer residential units and 104,544 less gross feet of commercial use within the northeastern corner of the Tivoli Specific Plan area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 6 Figure 1 – Project Location ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 7 Analysis Locations The purpose of the analysis is to identify the potential near-term and long-term impacts of the proposed project on the transportation system in the vicinity of the site. The following locations were adopted in consultation with City staff. Impacts further away from the project area than those listed below were considered minimal and therefore have not been included in this study. The transportation system components included in the analysis are intersections and roadway segments. The analysis locations are listed below and illustrated on Figure 2. Roadway and intersection operations were analyzed under weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 to 6:00 PM) peak-hour traffic conditions. In each case operations were evaluated for the hour with the highest measured traffic volumes. Traffic volumes were obtained from counts conducted during May 2005. Study Intersections The following locations were selected in coordination with City staff. Most locations exist today; however, a few do not. These new locations, which are associated with the build out of the Tivoli Specific Plan are noted with an 1 Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue 2 Boyce Lane at Sylvan Avenue 3 Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue 4 Claus Road at Claribel Road 5 Claus Road at Floyd Avenue 6 Claus Road at Milnes Road 7 Claus Road at Plainview Road 8 Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue 9 Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue 10 Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue 11 Coffee Road at Claribel Road 12 Coffee Road at Floyd Avenue 13 Coffee Road at Mable Avenue 14 Coffee Road at Rumble Road 15 Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue 16 Coffee Road at Sylvan Meadows Drive 17 Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue 18 Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue 19 McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road 20 McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue 21 McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue 22 McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue 23 Millbrook Avenue at Sylvan Avenue 24 N. NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue 25 Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way 26 Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue 27 Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue 28 Oakdale Road at Claribel Road 29 Oakdale Road at Crawford Road 30 Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue 31 Oakdale Road at Lancey Drive 32 Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue 33 Oakdale Road at Manor Oak Drive 34 Oakdale Road at Merle Avenue 35 Oakdale Road at Morrill Road 36 Oakdale Road at RSC-1 W. Driveway 2 37 Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue 38 Oakdale Road at Tivoli E 39 Oakdale Road RSC-1 W. Driveway 1 40 Roselle Avenue and MHDR-2 Driveway 41 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive 42 Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue 43 Roselle Avenue at Claratina Avenue 44 Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road 45 Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue 46 Roselle Avenue at Hillglen Avenue 47 Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive 48 Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue 49 Roselle Avenue at NC-1 E. Driveway 50 Roselle Avenue at Plainview Road 51 Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue 52 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C 53 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D 54 RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue 55 RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue 56 RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina 57 Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road 58 Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue 59 Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue 60 Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue * = Future intersection location ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 8 Figure 2 – Study Intersections Claribel Rd Claratina Ave Sylvan Ave Rumble Rd Oakdale Rd Floyd Ave E. Briggsmore Ave Manor Oak Drive Mable Ave Lancey Dr Roselle Ave Briggsmore Ave Millbrook Hillglen Ave Kodiak Dr Milnes Rd Plainview Rd McHenry Ave Merle Ave Boyce Ln McReynolds Ave Wood Sorrel Dr Aria Wy Coffee Rd Litt Rd Ave Claus Rd Terminal Ave Santa Fe Ave Sylva n M e a dows Dr Be l h a r b o u r A v Analysis Intersections Kodiak Dr Fine Ave Bridge- wood Tivoli D Tivoli C Tivoli B Tivoli A Lydia Lydia Tivoli E Crawford Rd Morrill Rd (for details, see diagram below) existing intersection future intersection future foadway railroad Legend 38 39 24 26 31 34 33 41 44 11 57 28 20 4 7 50 10 32 36 13 21 2 15 22 1 60 51 37 32 22 1 60 45 37 17 23 12 14 30 3 6 35 29 48 42 45 46 19 27 25 54 55 56 18 25 38 36 27 54 55 56 58 59 43 52 53 58 59 43 52 49 40 53 18 47 8 9 5 16 Analysis Intersections N S W E Not to Scale 39 24 49 40 ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 9 Roadway Segments The analysis roadways are listed below and shown on Figure 2. 1. Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Roselle Avenue 2. Oakdale Road - Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue 3. Roselle Avenue - Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue 4. Sylvan Avenue - Oakdale Road to Roselle Avenue Analysis Scenarios The above intersections and roadway segments were evaluated for the AM (morning) and PM (afternoon) peak commute periods for the existing and six future growth scenarios. Given that the City of Modesto model only forecasts daily traffic for the year 2025, a set of procedures were developed to create the 2012, 2017 and 2025 future year peak hour turn movements at each of the analysis intersections. Further, because the traffic patterns to and from the Tivoli Specific Plan area are far reaching, the City of Modesto traffic model was used to distribute project traffic onto the surrounding street system. Chapter 2 - Analysis Methodology provides a detailed discussion of the procedures used to forecast the year 2012, 2017 and 2025 with and without project traffic volumes. Scenario 1: Existing Conditions - Existing AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes, existing geometry, and intersection traffic controls were obtained from data surveys conducted by All Traffic Data, an independent traffic count firm, at each of the existing analysis intersections. Scenario 2: Year 2012 Baseline Conditions - Existing traffic volumes plus seven years of growth from 2005 to 2012. For this scenario, the existing intersection configurations plus all of the funded CIP projects that would be constructed by 2012 at one or more of the analysis intersections were assumed. Further, the Tivoli Specific Plan suggests various intersection modifications such as roundabouts and traffic signals, these were assumed when the impacts of the with-project scenarios were conducted. Scenario 3: Year 2012 Plus Project Conditions - Traffic volumes from Scenario 2 plus the traffic estimated for the 7-year build out of the proposed project. By 2012, the majority of the project would be developed. However, within the northeastern corner of the project no residential or commercial development would occur. This results in 724 fewer residential units and 104,544 gross square feet less in commercial development. Scenario 4: Year 2017 Baseline Conditions - Existing traffic volumes plus twelve years of growth from 2005 to 2017. The section on methodology discusses how the year 2017 baseline traffic volumes were created. For this scenario, the existing intersection configurations plus all of the funded projects that would be constructed by 2017 at one or more of the analysis intersections were assumed. Again, while the Tivoli Specific Plan suggests various intersection modifications ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 10 such as roundabouts and traffic signals, these are considered later under potential mitigation measures. Scenario 5: Year 2017 Plus Project Conditions - Traffic volumes from Scenario 4 plus the traffic estimated for the full build out of the proposed project. Scenario 6: Year 2025 (Cumulative) Baseline Conditions - Projected 2025 traffic volumes and the future roadway system from the Final Master EIR for the Urban Area General Plan and related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan assuming year 2025 build out for the Salida Community Plan as cited in the City of Modesto General Plan. Scenario 7: Year 2025 (Cumulative) Project Conditions - Traffic volumes from Scenario 6 plus the traffic estimated for build-out of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan area. The roadway system from Scenario 6 was maintained. Site access, on-site circulation, parking, pedestrian, bicycle and transit impacts are evaluated in this analysis. Report Organization The remainder of this report is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 1 - Introduction discusses the purpose and organization of this report. Chapter 2 - Analysis Methodology discusses the procedures used to: 1) create the project trip generation assumptions; 2) develop the future background baseline intersection and roadway volumes; 3) and the assignment of project traffic to the roadway system. Chapter 3 - Existing Conditions presents Existing Conditions and includes descriptions of the transportation system serving the site and an evaluation of current intersection and roadway conditions. Chapter 4 - Year 2012 Conditions discusses intersection and roadway operations under the year 2012 baseline conditions and the impacts of the portions of the project to be completed by 2012. Roadway and intersection improvements cited as part of the CFF or CFD have been included as assumed for the year 2012 baseline condition. Chapter 5 - Year 2017 Conditions discusses intersection and roadway operations under the year 2017 baseline conditions and the impacts of the portions of the project to be completed by 2017. Roadway and intersection improvements cited as part of the CFF or CFD have been included as assumed for the year 2017 baseline condition. Under this scenario, the Tivoli Specific Plan is assumed fully developed. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 11 Chapter 6 - Year 2025 (Cumulative) Conditions discusses intersection and roadway operations under the year 2025 baseline conditions and the impacts of the portions of the project to be completed by 2025. Roadway and intersection improvements cited as part of the CFF or CFD have been included as assumed for the year 2025 baseline condition. Chapter 7 - Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures identified significant adverse project impacts and proposed measures to mitigate the impacts to less- than-significant levels. Chapter 8 - Site Access, On-Site Circulation and Parking provides a discussion of site access, on-site circulation and parking requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 12 CHAPTER 2 - ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY This chapter describes the procedures used to establish the existing base year and future year conditions. The section also discusses how the project traffic was included in the various future analysis scenarios. It discusses the City of Modesto travel demand model (hereafter “City model”) and its application to the analysis. The use of additional traffic impact analysis software programs to evaluate intersection and roadway levels of service are discussed. Seven steps were employed to develop the future traffic volumes. 1. Validation of Year 2025 Cumulative Growth near the Project The year 2025 City model land use inputs were reviewed to make sure the projects such as the Crossroads and the proposed High School other development near the Tivoli Specific Plan area was included. The High School was incorporated into the baseline forecasting model. It was found that the Crossroads development had not been included. Therefore, based upon the trip generation from the Crossroads EIR, this traffic generated by the Crossroads was included in the baseline cumulative traffic volumes. 2. Estimating Year Future Peak Hour Baseline Intersection Volumes The City of Modesto model forecasts only average daily traffic volumes. The model does not include procedures for estimating AM or PM peak hour traffic. Each consultant using the model, to create peak hour estimates, has developed independent processes. Challenges are faced in using the City of Modesto travel demand model to develop peak hour traffic forecasts without redesigning the underlying trip generation and assignment processes that are incorporated within the model. A following method was developed so that future peak hour traffic volumes can be estimated from daily traffic volume projections of the City of Modesto traffic model. First, each trip purpose of the model's daily trip table was factored to estimate AM and PM peak hour trip tables for the 2025 model year. Then, the trip tables for the individual purposes were combined to create total trip tables for each peak hour. The total peak hour volumes were estimated in this way to be about 7.9% (AM) and 9.8% (PM) of the projected daily traffic volumes. In the factoring process, each trip purpose is factored separately to estimate the number of trips occurring in the peak hour and the appropriate directional split of those trips. The resulting total AM and PM peak hour trip tables were then assigned to the model network and the intersection turning movements were extracted for use in the operational analysis. 3. Refining the Future Forecasts The 2025 no-project peak hour volumes were subjected to a "Furness" process to obtain the final year 2025 (no-project) turning movements. The Furness process is a mathematical process of balancing forecast volumes to control for modeling error. This involves two steps. The first is to derive a future year delta that ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 13 isolates the growth on each intersection approach between the base-year and future year model output. The second is to assign link volumes to turning movement volumes by balancing approach and departure volumes based on the existing pattern of turning movements. The balance is made between the departing volume on each link and each of the turn volumes made through the intersection that feed that departing volume. The balancing can be set to match the higher value between the departing volume and sum of the turns, the lower of these or the average among other possibilities. In this analysis the process was set to match the higher of the two values to be more conservative. The Furness process was also set to ensure that no turning movement was allowed to fall below existing traffic on that movement. This prevents negative growth. As discussed, the Furness process was developed with assumptions to prevent negative traffic growth and to bias towards higher volumes in balancing turns. However, neither of these two assumptions ensured that positive growth would occur on each movement. A post process was developed and applied to the 2025 No Project volumes to ensure that a minimal amount of growth occurred on each and every movement. A spreadsheet was developed where each 2025 forecasted (and furnessed) turning movement was compared against the corresponding existing turning movement wherever such existed. The growth for each movement was calculated and any movements experiencing zero growth were flagged. To ensure positive growth all movements that in the first instance experienced zero growth were subjected to the minimum positive growth for any movement at the same intersection. In the one case where no growth was calculated at any movement at that intersection the minimum positive growth for all turns at all intersections was identified and applied intersection-wide. This approach has the benefit of ensuring growth on all movements without being entirely arbitrary. With this approach, all movements show some growth (before rounding) yet none of the movements that were post processed would have more growth than any movement at the same intersection that did not require post processing. 5. Estimating the Year 2012 and 2017 Background Condition The basic steps to be used to create the background year 2012 and 2017 conditions on roadway segments and at each of the analysis intersections are: Furness the existing intersection counts against year 2025 without project volumes extracted from the City of Modesto travel demand model (as discussed above). The difference between the year 2025 and year 2005 volumes was calculated. The 20 year difference was divided by 20 to create a per year (annual) uniform volume growth increment at each intersection. The per year traffic increment volumes were multiplied by 7 and 12 respectively. The resultant volumes were added to the year 2005 intersection volumes to establish the year 2012 and 2017 background traffic volumes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 14 6. Estimating Project Trip Generation The traffic zone system in the City model was expanded significantly to reflect the components of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan so that project trip generation and assignment could be estimated through use of the model. For the project scenarios the model was modified to include land use and network assumptions consistent with the proposed project for the interim 2012 scenario and for the 2017 and 2025 scenarios where the project is built out. The City model estimates daily trip attractions (inbound trips) and productions (outbound trips) for traffic analysis zones and these are used to derive peak hour trips as described under step 5 above. The model generated trip attractions and productions were then factored to match the inbound and outbound trip estimates for the proposed project based on ITE trip generation (Institute of Traffic Engineers, 2004). These ITE estimates represent the standard practice in estimating how much traffic would be found at the driveways of each of the project zones. The benefit of this approach is that overall project traffic matches the standard but the model can used to assign trips to the transportation network directly, including traffic between project zones. The factoring process was repeated over three iterations with countywide productions and attractions balanced each time. With a few exceptions this results in less than 1 percent error between the model-based trip generation estimate and the expected trip generation from ITE. The residual error is a result of the need for productions and attractions to be balanced after factoring during each iteration, including the last. A comparison of model and ITE trip generation by traffic analysis zone is shown in Appendix B. 7. Estimating the Project Peak Hour Condition The project peak hour traffic condition does not come directly from the project forecasts. That is because it is not appropriate to apply a Furness adjustment to the project forecasts (this would effectively ‘wash away’ the effect of the project on baseline conditions). In order to develop the project condition it is necessary to derive a project increment that can be added to the furnessed no project future traffic forecasts. Once the model was run, the trips adjusted to match ITE, and the resultant year 2025 with- project values were developed, the difference between with and without project (un- Furnessed) peak hour intersection volumes was calculated for every turning movement. This increment was then added directly to the "Furnessed" year 2025 without project intersection volumes to create the year 2025 with project traffic volumes. The same traffic generation was added to the 2017 baseline volumes to create the 2017 with project forecasts. As mentioned for the year 2012 forecasts, the model was run with the year 2012 trip generation and the same process was used to establish the project increment for 2012. That increment was added to the year 2012 without project volumes to create the 2012 with project condition. The roadways fronting on the project were retained in the network including portions of Tivoli Road E, Bridgewood Way, Mable Avenue, and Claratina Avenue extending east of Oakdale Road. However, portions of roads extending east of Roselle Avenue and Claus ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 15 Road were eliminated where these roads are not expected to be completed by 2012. This includes Claratina Avenue, Hillglen Avenue, and Kodiak Avenue east of Roselle and Floyd Avenue east of Claus Road. Existing uses within the specific plan area were not included in the with project traffic forecasts. The traffic from these uses was included in the existing turning movement counts and helps to set the floor for baseline traffic forecasts when growth is estimated according to the methodology described above. This traffic was excluded in order to avoid possible double counting of traffic when the project traffic was added as an increment on top of the furnessed background traffic forecasts. Therefore traffic associated with the EVLDR-1, 2 and 3 and NC-2 and 3 were not included in the future with project forecasts for the specific plan area as a whole. Trip Distribution Based on step 6 as described above it is possible to extract a trip distribution from the City model to illustrate the regional pattern of project traffic assignment. Figure 3 depicts the resulting trip distribution graphically. Table 2 shows the basic trip distribution patterns for the entire Tivoli Specific Plan area. These values were extracted directly from the City of Modesto travel demand model. To run the analysis, the full build-out land use and resultant trip generation was input to the model. The table is divided into two parts. The first shows the distribution of traffic beyond the Tivoli Specific Plan site. The second part shows the distribution of traffic beyond the area bounded by the farthest locations of the study intersections. The distribution percent falls off with distance from the project. Note however that to the northeast the percentage of project traffic increases over that found along Roselle Avenue north of Claratina or along Claratina east of Roselle. That is because traffic from RSC-1 tends to travel north along Oakdale Road and then east to Roselle before traveling north. The travel speed along Claratina and the restrictions on left turn turning movements make the route along Oakdale less time consuming that the more direct route along Roselle for traffic to and from this regional commercial shopping area. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 16 Table 2 - Trip Distribution Assumptions Trip Distribution Beyond Project Boundary Trip Distribution Beyond Study Area TOTAL NORTH of SITE 16.1% TOTAL NORTH of STUDY AREA 13.7% North of Claratina on Oakdale 14.2% North of Claribel on Claus 4.3% North of Claratina on Roselle 0.5% North of Claribel on Terminal 0.4% North of Claratina on Tivoli A 1.4% North of Claribel on Roselle 1.9% TOTAL EAST of SITE 11.3% North of Claribel on McHenry 5.6% East of Roselle on Claratina 2.1% North of Claribel on Coffee 0.7% East of Roselle on Sylvan 8.8% North of Morrill on Oakdale 0.8% East of Roselle on other roads 0.4% TOTAL EAST of STUDY AREA 1.9% TOTAL SOUTH of SITE 19.3% East of Claus on Claribel 0.3% South of Sylvan on Oakdale 13.6% East of Claus on Floyd 1.0% South of Sylvan on Roselle 4.4% East of Claus on Briggsmore 0.6% South of Sylvan on other roads 1.3% TOTAL SOUTH of STUDY AREA 17.1% TOTAL WEST of SITE 36.5% South of Sylvan on McHenry 1.9% West of Oakdale on Claratina 24.3% South of Floyd on Coffee 2.2% West of Oakdale on Sylvan 9.2% South of Briggsmore on Oakdale 5.8% West of Oakdale on other roads 3.0% South of Briggsmore on Roselle 1.8% Total beyond project boundary 83.2% South of Briggsmore on Claus 5.4% Internal to Project Site 16.8% TOTAL WEST of STUDY AREA 22.0% West of Oakdale on Briggsmore 2.3% West of McHenry on Sylvan 2.4% West of McHenry on Pelandale 12.5% West of Coffee on Floyd 3.3% West of McHenry on Claribel 1.5% Total beyond Study Area 54.7% ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 17 Figure 3 - Trip Distribution Claribel Rd Claratina Ave Sylvan Ave Rumble Rd Oakdale Rd Floyd Ave E. Briggsmore Ave Manor Oak Drive Mable Ave Lancey Dr Roselle Ave Briggsmore Ave Millbrook Hillglen Ave Kodiak Dr Milnes Rd Plainview Rd McHenry Ave Merle Ave Boyce Ln McReynolds Ave Wood Sorrel Dr Coffee Rd Litt Rd Ave Claus Rd Terminal Ave Santa Fe Ave Sylva n M e a dows Dr Be l h a r b o u r A v Trip Distribution Kodiak Dr Fine Ave Lydia Crawford Rd Morrill Rd Legend 14.2 0.5 1.4 2.1 X.X - 8.8 0.4 13.6 4.4 1.3 24.3 9.2 3.0 16.8 Internal to Site 4.3 0.4 1.9 5.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 1.0 0.6 X.X - 1.9 2.2 5.8 1.8 5.4 1.5 3.3 12.5 2.4 2.3 Percentage beyond Project Site Percentage beyond Study Area Percentage to NE via Oakdale and Claribel Tivoli Neighborhood Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. N S W E 5.8 to/from NE via Oakdale X.X - ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 18 Level of Service Methodologies The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term "level of service" (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service are defined ranging from LOS A best operating conditions) to LOS F (worst operating conditions). LOS E corresponds to operations "at-capacity". When volumes exceed capacity, stop-and-go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F. Different criteria and methodologies were used to assess operating conditions for the various types of facilities analyzed in this study, including signalized and unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. The LOS criteria and methodologies for each of these facilities are described in the following sections. Signalized Intersection Methodology Traffic conditions at signalized intersections were evaluated using the Transportation Research Board's 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. The operational analysis uses various intersection characteristics (such as traffic volumes, lane geometry, and signal phasing) to estimate the average control delay experienced by motorists traveling through an intersection. Control delay incorporates delay associated with deceleration, acceleration, stopping, and moving up in the queue. Table 3 summarizes the relationship between average delay per vehicle and LOS for signalized intersections. In Modesto, acceptable operations at signalized intersections are defined as LOS D (City of Modesto General Plan) or better. Stanislaus County has established LOS C as the acceptable service level at signalized intersections. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 19 Table 3 - Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression and/or short cycle length. 10.0 B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle > 10.0 to 20.0 C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle Individual cycle failures begin to appear. >20.0 to 35.0 D Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle or high V/C ratios. Many vehicle stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable. >35.0 to 55.0 E Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long cycle or high V/C ratios. Individual failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. >55.0 to 80.0 F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to over saturation, poor progression, or very long cycle > 80.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 Unsignalized Intersections and Roundabouts Traffic conditions at unsignalized (all-way stop-controlled and side street stop-controlled) intersections were also evaluated using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. With this methodology, operations are defined by the average control delay per vehicle (measured in seconds) for each stop-controlled movement. At two-way or side street- controlled intersections, the control delay (and LOS) is calculated for each controlled movement and for the entire intersection. For approaches composed of a single lane, the control delay is computed as the average of all movements in that lane. For Roundabouts, the delays and resultant levels of service associated with unsignalized intersections applies. Therefore, the values cited for stop controlled intersections also are used to determine the performance of Roundabouts. At all-way stop-controlled intersections, the control delay is calculated for the entire intersection and for each approach. The delays for the entire intersection and for the movement or approach with the highest delay are reported. Table 4 summarizes the relationship between delay and LOS for unsignalized intersections. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 20 Table 4 - Unsignalized Intersection and Roundabout LOS Criteria Level of Service Description Average Control Delay Per Vehicle (Seconds) A Little or no delays 10.0 B Short traffic delays > 10.0 to 15.0 C Average traffic delays >15.0 to 25.0 D Long traffic delays >25.0 to 35.0 E Very long traffic delays >35.0 to 50.0 F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 2000 Vehicle Queuing at Intersections The City of Modesto significance criteria include consideration of vehicle queues at intersections. For this report, specific consideration of existing and future vehicle queuing impacts was not included. Rather, when project impacts were found to be significant and warranting mitigation, the issue of vehicle queuing was included in the analysis. When needed, additional left turn lanes were added to reduce vehicle queues to acceptable levels. Roadway Segments The existing operations of roadway segments were evaluated by comparing the hourly volumes to the hourly capacities to develop a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. The hourly volumes for the roadway segments were obtained from the manual turning movements counts conducted at the intersections. The capacity of each segment was based on the type of facility (expressway, arterial, or collector), number of lanes, type of traffic controls at the intersection, and maximum per lane capacities from the Modesto General Plan. The General Plan defines the classes of arterials and collectors as major and minor according to their number of travel lanes, design speed, and right-of-way width. Roadway segment capacities remain constant for the classes of each roadway facility. The hourly per-lane capacities for each roadway type are presented in Table 5. The roadway segment LOS criteria are shown in Table 6. Table 5 - Hourly Per Lane Roadway Segment Capacities Type of Roadway Segment Capacity 1 Expressway (Class A) 1,500 Expressway (Class B) 1,250 Expressway (Class C) 1,000 Arterial (Signalized) 750 Arterial (Unsignalized) 1,000 Collector (Signalized) 500 Collector (Unsignalized) 750 Rural Road 900 Note: 1. Vehicles per lane per hour. Source: City of Modesto General Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 21 Table 6 - Roadway Segment LOS Criteria Level of Service Volume / Capacity Ratio 1 A 0.60 B > 0.60 to 0.70 C > 0.70 to 0.80 D > 0.80 to 0.90 E > 0.90 to 1.00 F > 1.00 Note: 1. Capacities are identified for each facility based on the classification. Source: City of Modesto General Plan ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 22 CHAPTER 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS This chapter describes the existing transportation conditions in the project study area, including the roadway network, and transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the project site. This chapter also presents operations conditions at the study intersections and roadway segments as shown on Figure 2. The boundaries of the study area for this report were discussed with City of Modesto staff. Generally, the roadways and intersections were selected for analysis based upon the potential amount of traffic added by the project. The study area is bounded by McHenry Avenue on the west, East Briggsmore Avenue to the south, Claus Road to the east and Claribel Road to the north. In addition, two intersections on Oakdale Road north of Claribel Road are included. These are: Oakdale Road at Crawford Road and Oakdale Road at Morrill Road. Roadway Network State Route 99 (SR 99) is a six-lane, north-south freeway located to the west of the project site and provides inter-county and intra-county regional access while local access is provided via Kiernan Avenue (SR 219)-Claribel Road, Pelandale Avenue, Sylvan Avenue, East Briggsmore Avenue, Oakdale Road, and Roselle Avenue. These roadways and others in the vicinity of the project are described below. The two interchanges on SR 99 at Standiford Avenue and Pelandale Avenue provide access to the site. The speed limit on SR 99 is 65 miles per hour (MPH). Kiernan Avenue (SR 219) is a major east-west state highway that extends from west of SR 99 to McHenry Avenue, where it becomes Claribel Road. Near the site, Claribel Road is a two-lane rural road. Claribel Road is a two-lane rural road extending from McHenry Avenue to its eastern terminus near the Modesto Reservoir. Pelandale Avenue is an east-west arterial that extends from west of SR 99 to east of McHenry Avenue, where it becomes Claratina Avenue. The speed limit on Pelandale Avenue is 50 mph east of Dale Road, and 45 mph west of Dale Road. Claratina Avenue continues easterly and terminates at Coffee Road. McHenry Avenue (SR 108) extends from Needham Street in Downtown Modesto into San Joaquin County. McHenry Avenue is designated as SR 108 from Needham Street to Patterson Road. McHenry Avenue is a four-lane arterial south of Kiernan Avenue/Claribel Road and widens to six lanes near Standiford Avenue/Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road is a two-lane rural road. Coffee Road extends from Scenic Drive near Dry Creek to Patterson Road. Coffee Road is four-lane minor arterial south of Mable Avenue. Oakdale Road is rural road in the project vicinity extending from Riverbank to SR 132 near the southern part of Modesto. Oakdale Road is two lanes north of Bridgewood Drive with a second southbound lane from Bridgewood to Sylvan Avenue. South of Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road is a four lane road. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 23 Claus Road (County Route J7) is a two-lane rural road extending from SR 132 in Modesto to Atchison Road in Riverbank. South of East Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road is constructed as a six-lane arterial street. Transit Service Modesto Area Express (MAX) and Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) provide bus services within the City of Modesto. Modesto Area Express (MAX) MAX does not currently provide service directly to the project site. However, two MAX bus routes currently provide transit access to the periphery along Oakdale and Sylvan. Route 32, which operates near the site between Modesto’s Downtown Transit Center and Coffee Road, has two loop configurations serving Oakdale and Floyd Avenues: one via Mable Avenue, the other via Sylvan Avenue. The Mable Loop has three bus stops that border the project site to the west at the intersections of Oakdale and Mable, Oakdale and Bridgewood, and Oakdale and Sylvan, whereas Sylvan Loop’s closest bus stop is at Oakdale and Sylvan. Service hours are Monday through Friday from 6:15 am to 7:15 pm with half- hour frequencies alternating between service to Mable Loop and Sylvan Loop. On Saturday, only the Mable Loop is served hourly between 7:45 am and 6:45 pm and on Sunday, only Sylvan Loop is served hourly between 8:45 am and 5:45 pm. Route 37, which also operates near the site, provides transit between Downtown Modesto and Vintage Faire Mall and serves bus stops at Oakdale and Sylvan. This route operates hourly Monday through Saturday from 6:45 am to 5:45 am, with no Sunday service. MAX operates the Modesto Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) shuttle to transfer passengers from Modesto (at Vintage Fair Mall) to the Lathrop/Manteca (ACE) train station. ACE provides passenger rail service between San Joaquin Valley and Santa Clara Valley. MAX also operates the Modesto Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Express, connecting Modesto (at Vintage Faire Mall) to the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. BART provides commuter rail service to San Francisco (including the San Francisco International Airport), Millbrae, Fremont, Richmond and Pittsburg/Bay Point. Stanislaus Regional Transit (StaRT) StaRT operates Runabouts, a transit service that combines fixed-route service (with fixed stops) and dial-a-ride service (with curb-to-curb service). Passengers can use this service between the fixed stops without making prior arrangements. Advanced reservations must be made for curbside service. The proposed site is within the service area of three Runabout routes (Waterford/Modesto, Turlock/Modesto and Eastside) and curbside service would be available to passengers with advance reservations. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 24 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian facilities consist of sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. Currently, there are no pedestrian facilities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. However, limited segments of sidewalks do exist adjacent to existing development near the Tivoli Specific Plan area. Bicycle facilities comprise the following: Bike paths (Class I) - Paved trails that are separated from roadways. Bike lanes (Class II) - Lanes on roadways designated for use by bicycles by striping, pavement legends, and signs. Bike routes (Class III) - Designated roadways for bicycle use by signs only; may or may not include additional pavement width for cyclist. There are no bicycle facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Existing Intersection Levels of Service Traffic volumes for all of the study intersections were obtained from counts conducted during May 2005. Figures 4a, 4b and 4c illustrate the existing AM and PM peak hour turn movement counts conducted during May of 2005. The existing volumes were used with the existing lane configurations and signal phasing as input to the LOS calculations to evaluate current operations at the existing study intersections. The LOS analysis results are presented in Table 7. Locations where the peak hour levels of service exceed the City standard are highlighted. For unsignalized intersections, the highest controlled movement delay for two-way stop and the overall average delay is reported. The highest approach delay is reported for all-way stop intersections. At those unsignalized intersections when either the delay or peak hour volume criteria are met, Table 7 shows if a signal warrant is met for the AM and/or PM peak hour condition. The intersection LOS calculation sheets are provided in the technical Appendix to this report, which can be secured upon request from the City of Modesto. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 25 Figure 4a - Existing AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements 4 2 5 1 3 7 6 10 9 12 11 13 15 14 19 18 17 20 16 Claratina Ave/McHenry Ave Mable Ave/Coffee Rd Claribel Rd/Claus Rd Claratina Ave/Coffee Rd Claribel Rd/McHenry Ave Claribel Rd/Coffee Rd Floyd Ave/Claus Rd Floyd Ave/Coffee Rd Sylvan Ave/Claus Rd Sylvan Ave/Lydia Ln Sylvan Ave/Aria Wy Sylvan Meadows/Coffee Rd Rumble Rd/Coffee Rd Sylvan Ave/Coffee Rd Sylvan Ave/Boyce Ln Plainview Rd/Claus Rd Briggsmore Ave/Claus Rd Milnes Rd/Claus Rd Santa Fe Ave/Claus Rd Sylvan Ave/Litt Rd STOP = four-way stop = stop sign = signalized intersection LAUS OAD C R RIGGSMORE VE B A 104(217) 570(816) 225(229) 79(112) 801(521) 214(131) 126(186) 160(370) 283(349) 89(72) 385(222) 248(121) 1252 1241 LAUS OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A STOP 381(615) 258(324) 523(414) 49(125) 100(129) 251(234) OYCE ANE B L YLVAN VENUE S A 21(10) 150(4) 33(10) 100(40) 26(2) 30(8) 200(43) 576(1521) 67(22) 218(23) 945(1023) 16(12) RIA AY A W YLVAN VENUE S A 22(10) 203(53) 400(856) 187(115) 742(540) 5(11) 1815 LAUS OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R 63(121) 265(510) 8(24) 11(21) 355(410) 51(78) 47(47) 136(209) 17(23) 27(22) 194(247) 127(155) 1925 OFFEE OAD C R LOYD VENUE F A 64(140) 757(1078) 84(127) 98(176) 1199(877) 111(58) 109(116) 149(350) 69(74) 93(111) 227(226) 176(109) 2326 OFFEE OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 82(182) 185(306) 53(32) 16(14) 459(210) 84(32) 22(56) 190(368) 28(80) 17(46) 468(411) 72(64) 2728 OFFEE OAD C R LARATINA VE C A STOP 219(268) 478(370) 454(262) 128(93) 80(225) 261(581) 1909 OFFEE OAD C R UMBLE OAD R R 139(119) 738(1026) 89(141) 44(56) 1072(873) 106(129) 142(137) 127(186) 145(153) 107(71) 224(108) 178(68) 2286 OFFEE OAD C R ARBLE VENUE M A 38(161) 460(494) 10(11) 215(278) 500(564) 1(0) 2(4) 1(6) 10(8) 239(141) 8(8) 199(101) 2868 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN EADOWS S M R D 38(38) 760(760) 43(141) 23(32) 721(801) 23(28) 9(18) 11(311) 102(109) 33(27) 18(22) 32(32) 2807 ITT OAD L R YLVAN VENUE S A 57(35) 15(25) 137(95) 12(6) 3(10) 7(12) 8(9) 321(419) 60(135) 9(6) 315(423) 21(46) 1245 C ENRY VE M H A LARATINA VE C A 192(114) 340(223) 36(41) 121(133) 251(406) 99(104) 101(148) 635(878) 29(55) 73(112) 769(1014) 82(304) 2325 C ENRY VE M H A LARIBEL OAD C R 29(55) 635(878) 101(148) 82(304) 769(1014) 73(112) 121(133) 251(406) 99(104) 192(114) 340(223) 36(41) 1905 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 141(186) 537(723) 323(408) 116(277) 702(564) 152(229) 97(212) 506(1121) 271(332) 116(105) 796(824) 239(142) 8 1242 LAUS OAD C R ANTA E VENUE S F A 0(37) 309(535) 172(171) 7(20) 441(394) 2(2) 0(10) 13(121) 121(112) 12(42) 47(169) 10(33) 18 YDIA ANE L L YLVAN VENUE S A 1(0) 8(6) 2(8) 695(1145) 1(2) 1038(783) 4604 26 AKDALE OAD O R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 170(429) 1396(1639) 634(472) 259(492) 1386(1772) 488(417) 228(573) 1151(2146) 261(623) 460(443) 2211(1956 ) 327(197) 27 AKDALE OAD O R LARATINA VENUE C A 137(192) 1334(1264) 1326(1216) 223(504) 956(1515) 752(494) 260(750) 681(1880) 595(1272) 144(160) 1661(1267) 176(173) 28 AKDALE OAD O R LARIBEL OAD C R 0(337) 1150(106 9) 990(867) 50(295) 914(1661) 713(680) 610(935) 883(2672) 557(847) 97(77) 2768(1860) 331(0) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 26 Figure 4b - Existing AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements 24 27 23 28 32 31 35 36 40 39 Merle Ave/Oakdale Rd Claribel Rd/Oakdale Rd Claratina Ave/Oakdale Rd Mable Ave/Oakdale Rd Lancey Dr/Oakdale Ave Floyd Ave/Oakdale Rd Morrill Rd/Oakdale Rd Briggsmore Ave/Oakdale Rd Tivoli E/Oakdale Rd Sylvan Ave/Millbrook Ave STOP = four-way stop = stop sign = signalized intersection 2733 AKDALE OAD O R RIGGSMORE VE B A 56(190) 661(1258) 437(373) 95(218) 944(1110) 456(299) 172(479) 484(851) 256(425) 181(152) 1073(558) 163(69) 1818 AKDALE OAD O R LARIBEL OAD C R 67(103) 394(451) 75(61) 26(44) 522(419) 94(57) 65(122) 185(318) 60(41) 20(42) 341(346) 130(75) 1124 AKDALE OAD O R ANCEY RIVE L D 4(17) 849(1529) 67(102) 30(49) 1410(1246) 33(61) 32(135) 7(35) 41(71) 31(37) 4(23) 45(85) 1926 AKDALE OAD O R LOYD VENUE F A 72(103) 768(1041) 126(209) 147(258) 828(1102) 61(27) 79(131) 174(332) 98(145) 238(156) 282(217) 158(124) 1965 AKDALE OAD O R ERLE VE M A 156(526) 745(1102) 14(58) 142(183) 1133(1126) 6(99) 3(0) 0(1) 0(3) 213(302) 0(19) 340(224) 2287 AKDALE OAD O R ARBLE VENUE M A 0(6) 383(498) 111(113) 2(0) 527(492) 177(33) 152(110) 4(2) 141(169) 4(6) 1(5) 0(4) 1808 AKDALE OAD O R ORRILL D M R STOP 22(77) 348(401) 5(8) 31(69) 333(402) 48(40) 15(18) 38(137) 5(0) 95(78) 130(87) 49(42) 2889 ILLBROOK VE H A YLVAN VE S A 14(13) 62(38) 302(392) 49(75) 402(387) 5(8) No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist 22 21 Sylvan Ave/McHenry Ave Sylvan/McReynolds Ave 1903 C ENRY VE M H A YLVAN VENUE S A 106(263) 608(960) 210(356) 107(263) 881(856) 88(141) 117(211) 593(975) 238(296) 110(168) 1007(874) 230(245) 3928 C EYNOLDS VE M R A YLVAN VENUE S A 28(9) 1(0) 118(35) 2(0) 1(1) 4(3) 2(3) 361(770) 39(70) 1(1) 641(500) 10(12) NC-1 North Dwy/Claratina Ave RSC-1 West Dwy 1/Oakdale Rd MHDR-2 Driveway/Roselle Ave RSC-1 West Dwy 1/Oakdale Rd 2876 AKDALE OAD O R RIDGEWOOD Y B W 392(478) 83(67) 371(478) 9(8) 3(6) 80(90) 1717 AKDALE OAD O R ANOR AK R M O D 33(121) 769(1288) 1(16) 51(130) 1032(1244) 0(0) 1(2) 7(1) 1(10) 201(71) 18(2) 173(53) 1907 AKDALE OAD O R YLVAN VENUE S A 95(184) 450(563) 482(381) 228(215) 574(505) 96(89) 66(136) 374(754) 266(519) 204(127) 672(518) 170(144) 1655 AKDALE OAD O R RAWFORD OAD C R 134(252) 282(435) 8(7) 25(87) 345(351) 21(4) 14(6) 0(2) 3(5) 70(46) 3(3) 386(172) No Intersection or Does Not Exist 26 25 29 30 34 33 37 38 Crawford Rd/Oakdale Ave Sylvan Ave/Oakdale Rd Manor Oak Dr/Oakdale Rd Bridgewood Wy/Oakdale Rd ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 27 Figure 4c - Existing AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements 48 46 49 45 47 51 50 54 53 52 55 Sylvan Ave/Roselle Ave Plainview Rd/Roselle Ave Tivoli C/Roselle Ave Tivoli D/Roselle Ave STOP = four-way stop = stop sign = signalized intersection Claratina Ave/RSC Driveway 2 Claratina Ave/RSC Driveway 1 Claratina Ave/RSC Driveway 3 Claribel Rd/Terminal Ave 2701 OSELLE VENUE R A LAINVIEW OAD P R 3(6) 237(282) 5(8) 340(362) 0(0) 0(0) 1(0) 26(10) 10(4) 1908 OSELLE VENUE R A YLVAN VENUE S A 26(42) 188(258) 136(93) 47(61) 203(209) 69(51) 45(89) 277(328) 55(255) 31(46) 392(368) 40(25) No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist 1816 ERMINAL VE T A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 2(1) 73(108) 94(70) 4(7) 76(78) 122(100) 36(118) 177(271) 86(57) 6(10) 248(339) 4(2) 44 43 Claratina Ave/Roselle Ave Briggsmore Ave/Roselle Ave Claribel Rd/Roselle Ave 1817 OSELLE VENUE R A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 21(60) 132(191) 64(33) 89(66) 255(219) 79(44) 70(70) 188(321) 19(57) 70(68) 348(395) 46(46) 2799 OSELLE VENUE R A RIGGSMORE VE B A 36(19) 164(421) 215(122) 108(113) 416(297) 448(167) 70(331) 368(744) 105(175) 22(40) 703(464) 43(53) No Intersection or Does Not Exist 2826 OSELLE VENUE R A ELHARBOUR R B D 39(181) 265(398) 20(58) 27(57) 379(402) 16(42) 7(8) 5(1) 41(13) 60(43) 31(15) 98(36) 41 42 Bel Harbour Dr/Roselle Ave STOP 56 54 53 55 58 57 59 Claratina Ave/Tivoli B Claratina Ave/Tivoli A Sylvan Ave/Wood Sorrell Dr 60 3932 OOD ORRELL R W S D YLVAN VENUE S A 20(5) 52(59) 566(967) 50(63) 938(591) 6(1) No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist 3929 OSELLE VENUE R A UTURE ODIAK R F K D 343(400) 86(21) 327(480) 51(47) 25(7) 67(5) 2834 OSELLE VENUE R A ERLE VE M A STOP 52(171) 152(459) 47(161) 60(58) 528(392) 61(58) 48(50) 104(125) 183(81) 87(47) 133(117) 259(104) Merle Ave/Roselle Ave Kodiak Dr/Roselle Ave 2881 OSELLE VENUE R A LOYD VENUE F A STOP 22(69) 269(295) 41(83) 97(92) 263(354) 58(46) 50(91) 83(146) 52(111) 118(35) 156(106) 107(40) Floyd Ave/Roselle Ave 3921 OSELLE VENUE R A ILLGLEN VENUE H A 280(355) 88(54) 224(461) 74(27) 70(39) 155(65) Hillglen Ave/Roselle Ave NC-1 East Dwy/Roselle Ave ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 28 Table 7 - Existing Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service Intersection AM PM ID # Name Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Meets Signal Warrant AM/PM 1 Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 107.0 (539.1) F(F) 5.9 (135.7) A(F) Y/N 2 Boyce Lane at Sylvan Avenue Signal 40.0 D 8.1 A 3 Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 30.8 C 29.2 C 4 Claus Road at Claribel Road Signal 24.4 C 25.6 C 5 Claus Road at Future Floyd Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6 Claus Road at Milnes Road Unsignalized 32.7 (241.6) D(F) 8.3 (106.3) A(F) Y/Y 7 Claus Road at Plainview Road Unsignalized 0.3 ( 18.1) A(C) 0.4 ( 23.6) A(C) N/N 8 Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Unsignalized 12.4 ( 94.9) B(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) N/Y 9 Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue All-way STOP 42.4 E 60.6 F Y/Y 10 Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue All-way STOP 75.4 F 51.6 F N/N 11 Coffee Road at Claribel Road All-way STOP 249.4 F 188.3 F N/N 12 Coffee Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 31.8 C 34.1 C 13 Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Signal 38.2 D 26.5 C 14 Coffee Road at Rumble Road Signal 39.8 D 31.6 C 15 Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 37.6 D 60.3 E 16 Coffee Road at Sylvan Meadows Drive Signal 14.2 B 24.8 C 17 Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 21.9 ( 95.0) C(F) 54.7 (320.5) F(F) Y/Y 18 Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 0.1 ( 21.1) A(C) 0.1 ( 14.2) A(B) N/N 19 McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road Signal 30.6 C 32.0 C 20 McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue Signal 29.5 C 32.8 C 21 McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Signal 39.3 D 59.3 E 22 McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 46.9 (271.0) E(F) 3.4 ( 77.0) A(F) Y/Y 23 Millbrook Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 2.6 ( 20.3) A(C) 1.2 ( 17.7) A(C) N/N 24 N. NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 25 Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Unsignalized 1.7(11.4) A(B) 1.6(13.2) A(B) 26 Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 36.3 D 30.6 C 27 Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 28 Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Signal 30.4 C 30.5 C 29 Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Signal 22.8 C 18.6 B 30 Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 48.9 D 51.5 D 31 Oakdale Road at Lancey Drive Signal 9.5 A 17.4 B 32 Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Signal 20.2 C 16.6 B 33 Oakdale Road at Manor Oak Drive Signal 20.0 B 10.4 B 34 Oakdale Road at Merle Avenue Signal 18.5 B 21.1 C 35 Oakdale Road at Morrill Road All-way STOP 23.2 C 44.7 E N/N 36 Oakdale Road at Private Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 37 Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 37.8 D 38.0 D 38 Oakdale Road at Tivoli E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 39 Oakdale Road RSC-1 W. Driveway 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 40 Roselle Avenue and MHDR-2 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 41 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Unsignalized 23.8 ( 88.8) C(F) 3.8 ( 30.8) A(D) Y/N 42 Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 42.8 D 29.0 C 43 Roselle Avenue at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 44 Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 71.1 F 128.5 F N/N 45 Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue All-way STOP 58.1 F 61.1 F Y/N 46 Roselle Avenue at Hillglen Avenue Unsignalized 7.6 ( 21.6) A(C) 2.6 ( 17.3) A(C) N/N 47 Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive Unsignalized 3.1 ( 17.7) A(C) 0.4 ( 16.3) A(C) N/N 48 Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue All-way STOP 77.7 F 21.7 C Y/N 49 Roselle Avenue at NC-1 E. Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 50 Roselle Avenue at Plainview Road Unsignalized 1.2 ( 12.2) A(B) 0.5 ( 11.7) A(B) N/N 51 Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue All-way STOP 93.0 F 103.2 F N/N 52 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 53 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 54 RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 55 RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 56 RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 29 Intersection AM PM ID # Name Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Meets Signal Warrant AM/PM 57 Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 15.3 C 25.1 D N/N 58 Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 59 Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 60 Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 16.9 (252.5) C(F) 4.5 (113.4) A(F) Y/N Note: xx (xx) – Overall (Worst Case) delay and levels of service for unsignalized intersection. n/a = not applicable this location does not currently exist. * = >9999 indicates overflow delay. The delay calculations for the HCM 2000 methodology are incapable of quantifying delay. Estimated delay would exceed 9999 seconds. Signalized Intersections The following locations experience sub-standard, that is, LOS E or F conditions during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Mc Henry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Existing Stop Control Intersections That Meet Delay or Peak Hour Warrant The following locations experience sub-standard, that is, LOS E or F conditions during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Further, each intersection meets either the delay, peak hour volume or both signal warrants. Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue Mc Reynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Existing Stop Control Intersections That Do Not Meet Warrants The following locations experience sub-standard, that is, LOS E or F conditions during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Further, these intersections do not meet either the delay, peak hour volume or both signal warrants. Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 30 Existing Roadway Segment Levels of Service Roadway segment V/C ratios were calculated based on the existing volumes and segment capacities presented in Table 5. Road segment capacities are inherently conservative as they are based on the number of lanes on the mainline segments and do not necessarily consider additional turn lanes (and their added capacity) at the approaches to intersections. The existing V/C ratios and corresponding LOS values are shown in Table 8. Table 8 - Existing Peak Hour Roadway Levels of Service Location Direction Lane type Per lane Capacity v/c LOS v/c LOS Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road EB 1 rural road 900 1.053 F 1.250 F McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road WB 1 rural road 900 1.027 F 1.589 F Roselle Avenue North of Sylvan Avenue NB 1 rural road 900 0.293 A 0.437 A North of Sylvan Avenue SB 1 rural road 900 0.354 A 0.357 A Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue EB 2 unsignalized arterial 1000 0.189 A 0.336 A Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue WB 1 unsignalized arterial 1000 0.597 A 0.569 A McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way EB 1 unsignalized arterial 900 0.447 A 0.937 E McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way WB 1 unsignalized arterial 900 0.848 D 0.538 A Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive EB 1 unsignalized arterial 1000 0.587 A 0.971 E Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive WB 1 unsignalized arterial 1000 0.945 E 0.593 A Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane EB 1 unsignalized arterial 1000 0.619 B 1.030 F Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane WB 1 Collector Arterial 1000 0.993 E 0.650 B Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road EB 1 rural road 1000 0.697 B 1.153 F Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road WB 1 rural road 750 1.395 F 1.052 F Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way NB 1 rural road 900 0.800 D 0.918 E Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way SB 2 rural road 900 0.499 A 0.449 A Bridgewood Way to Mable Avenue NB 1 rural road 900 0.439 A 0.538 A Bridgewood Way to Mable Avenue SB 2 rural road 900 0.211 A 0.270 A Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue NB 1 rural road 900 0.599 A 0.682 B Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue SB 1 rural road 750 0.941 E 0.700 C Note: NB = northbound, SB = southbound, WB = westbound and EB = eastbound Sub-Standard Roadway Segment Operations The following roadway segments operate at levels of service below the acceptable threshold adopted by the City of Modesto. Refer to Table 8 for details regarding impacts along specific roadway subsegments. Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road Oakdale Road – Sylvan Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue Sylvan Avenue – Roselle Avenue to Oakdale Road ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 31 CHAPTER 4 - YEAR 2012 CONDITIONS Year 2012 conditions represent near-term conditions with planned and financed transportation system improvements, traffic volume increases due to expected local development plus regional growth, and portions of the project to be conducted by 2012. The Year 2012 portions of the project include: The proposed project minus 724 residential units located within the northeastern quadrant of the project site plus 104,544 less gross square footage of commercial uses within the same area. LOS analysis results for the key intersections and roadway segments were used as the basis for determining near-term (2012) project impacts as discussed in Chapter 2. Year 2012 Baseline Transportation System Improvements Modifications to the transportation system include roadway and intersection improvements found with the City of Modesto Capitol Improvement Program. These improvements are described in the following section. Roadway Segment Improvements 1. Construct 2 lanes on Claratina Avenue between Coffee Road and Oakdale Road (Fall 2006) 2. Widen Floyd Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes between Oakdale Road and Grouse Crossing Way (Fall 2006) 3. Widen Floyd Avenue between Roselle Avenue and Fine Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes (Fall 2007) 4. Construct 4 lanes on Floyd Avenue between Fine Avenue and Claus Road (Fall 2008) 5. Construct a median on Oakdale Road between Mable Avenue and Claratina Avenue (Fall 2012) 6. Construct center turn lane on Oakdale Road between La Force Drive and Floyd Avenue (Fall 2012) 7. Construct third southbound lane on Oakdale Road between Floyd Avenue and E. Briggsmore Avenue (Fall 2012) 8. Widen Roselle Avenue between Sylvan Avenue and Floyd Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes (Fall 2008) 9. To be consistent with the analysis methodology applied in the other recent EIRs, the use of 2 lane roundabouts along portions of Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue mean that these are effectively analyzed as 4-lane unsignalized arterials for roadway LOS. 10. Widen Briggsmore Avenue from 2 to 4 lanes between Oakdale Road and Claus Road Local Intersection Improvements 1. Construct a traffic signal at Claus Road and Floyd Avenue (Fall 2007) 2. Construct a 2 lane roundabout at Roselle Avenue and Floyd Avenue (Fall 2008) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 32 3. Construct intersection improvements at Oakdale Road and La Force Drive (Fall 2007) 4. Construct a traffic signal at Roselle Avenue and Merle Avenue (Fall 2012) 5. Construct intersection improvements at Sylvan Avenue and Aria Way (Fall 2010) 6. Construct a 2 lane roundabout at Sylvan Avenue and Roselle Avenue (Fall 2006) 7. Construct a 2 x 1 lane roundabout at Sylvan Avenue and Millbrook Avenue (Fall 2006) 8. Construct a 2 x 1 lane roundabout at Sylvan Avenue and Litt Road (Fall 2010) 9. Construct a traffic signal at Sylvan Avenue and Claus Road (Fall 2007) 10. Construct intersection improvements at Sylvan Avenue and Claus Road (Fall 2010) 11. Construct a 2 x 2 lane roundabout at Claratina Avenue and Coffee Road 12. Construct a 2 x 1 lane roundabout at Roselle Avenue and Hillglen Avenue 13. Construct a 2 x 1 lane roundabout at Roselle Avenue and Kodiak Drive Figures 5a, 5b and 5c show the AM and PM peak hour traffic without the project. The assumed geometry at each intersection is also shown. Year 2012 Project Related Transportation Improvements The proposed project will create new intersections at six locations by 2012: Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue Tivoli Road E at Oakdale Avenue RSC-1 West Driveway 1 at Oakdale Road The study has assumed that by 2012, the project will create a new segment of Claratina Avenue from Oakdale Road to Tivoli Road A. The City will ultimately require the project to fund construction of this road to Roselle Avenue. It is assumed that this will be phased and that construction to Tivoli A will be complete by 2012. Conditions on the segment from Tivoli A to Roselle are evaluated under 2017 conditions. On Roselle Avenue the project will be required to fund improvement to a four lane unsignalized arterial from Sylvan Avenue to the future Claratina Avenue. The project will fund improvement of Oakdale Road from Claratina Avenue to Sylvan Avenue to 3 northbound lanes to complete a six lane arterial. Improvement of Oakdale Road to a six lane arterial will include a median that will prohibit left turns at minor intersections including Tivoli Road E. These left turns will be shifted to Bridgewood Way. On Oakdale Road at Tivoli Road E and the RSC-1 Driveway the project will have right turn only access with outbound right turns served by an acceleration lane. Year 2012 Project Traffic The amount of traffic associated with the project was estimated using the process, which is described in Chapter 2. The major steps include: ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 33 1. Estimating the project trip generation and factor to reproduce ITE trip generation estimates. 2. Assign trips to specific roadway segments and intersection turning movements using the City of Modesto Model. 3. Add the increment of project generated traffic to the year 2012 baseline (without project) volumes. Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by Phase 1 of the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan was estimated from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition) for the variety of uses listed below. The rates are presented below in Table 9. Table 9 - Project Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Designation (Acronym) Daily In Out Total In Out Total Large Lot Estate Residential (VLDR) 9.571 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.64 0.37 1.01 Small Lot Residential (VDR) 9.571 0.19 0.56 0.75 0.64 0.37 1.01 Medium Density Residential (MDR5) 8.791 0.16 0.47 0.67 0.45 0.33 0.78 High Density Residential (MHDR) 6.721 0.75 3.00 0.51 0.40 0.22 0.62 Neighborhood Commercial (NC) 42.942 2.29 1.46 1.03 1.80 1.95 3.75 Commercial 42.942 2.29 1.46 1.03 1.80 1.95 3.75 Regional Serving Commercial (RSC) 60.872 1.45 1.19 2.64 2.60 2.68 5.28 Professional Office (PO) 11.572 3.56 0.44 1.80 0.26 1.47 1.73 Elementary School 1.293 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.13 0.15 0.28 Parks 204 2 2 4 2 2 4 1 All rates are calculated per dwelling unit 2 All rates are calculated per thousand square feet 3 All rates are calculated by student enrollment 4 All rates are calculated by number of acres 5 For the MDR land use, ITE code 231 was used, low-rise residential condo/townhouse rates. As no ADT rate is provided, the ratio of the PM/ADT for ITE code 230 or 0.088737 (0.52/5.86) was applied to the PM rate for ITE 231 or 8.79 (0.78/0.88737). ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 34 Figure 5a – 2012 Baseline AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 1 RIA AY A W YLVAN VENUE S A 30(17) 0(0) 257(62) 0(0) 0(2) 0(0) 0(0) 521(1166) 237(119) 0(1) 941(847) 9(18) 2 OYCE ANE B L YLVAN VENUE S A 21(12) 151(5) 44(37) 101(43) 26(7) 38(25) 202(49) 625(1667) 68(75) 220(25) 1267(1174) 16(14) 3 LAUS OAD C R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 242(356) 1333(1468) 395(382) 135(244) 1234(1324) 288(291) 230(287) 291(525) 463(560) 156(167) 528(475) 389(296) 4 LAUS OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R 63(142) 745(883) 387(325) 11(25) 696(770) 424(371) 223(341) 165(298) 275(557) 27(26) 295(289) 127(181) 5 LAUS OAD C R UTURE LOYD VENUE F F A 1052(932) 87(226) 702(1115) 70(191) 165(121) 213(172) 6 LAUS OAD C R ILNES OAD M R 64(119) 1642(1638) 63(143) 1325(1737) 84(65) 127(49) 7 LAUS OAD C R LAINVIEW OAD P R 5(2) 1151(1281) 79(28) 2(0) 999(1286) 51(99) 46(14) 0(0) 59(118) 5(7) 8 LAUS OAD C R ANTA E VENUE S F A 0(40) 1204(1260) 186(184) 8(21) 1037(1361) 6(6) 0(14) 14(130) 131(121) 13(46) 51(182) 11(35) 9 LAUS OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 1176(1267) 529(536) 1091(1342) 84(192) 162(177) 351(504) 10 OFFEE OAD C R LARATINA VENUE C A 70(139) 474(486) 641(457) 46(145) 522(453) 166(130) 147(328) 211(834) 278(719) 25(40) 1054(673) 147(186) 11 OFFEE OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 223(352) 312(368) 264(134) 17(22) 484(381) 127(100) 53(119) 793(1509) 115(410) 24(49) 1756(1363) 151(122) 12 OFFEE OAD C R LOYD VENUE F A 64(145) 887(1152) 84(132) 99(182) 1200(1005) 133(93) 158(134) 149(362) 69(76) 105(119) 227(234) 176(113) 13 OFFEE OAD C R ABLE VENUE M A 44(174) 831(860) 12(12) 250(306) 674(955) 1(0) 2(4) 1(6) 12(9) 278(165) 9(9) 231(109) 14 OFFEE OAD C R UMBLE OAD R R 140(122) 961(1159) 90(145) 46(69) 1080(1108) 108(134) 149(141) 128(191) 146(157) 115(73) 226(111) 179(70) 15 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 142(191) 696(752) 325(418) 127(284) 707(707) 172(236) 134(252) 510(1149) 273(340) 165(131) 802(844) 241(146) 16 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN EADOWS RIVE S M D 38(43) 1018(1010) 43(142) 23(32) 876(1106) 23(28) 9(18) 11(315) 103(110) 37(27) 18(22) 53(53) 17 ITT OAD L R YLVAN VENUE S A 64(39) 18(28) 153(106) 54(74) 3(12) 57(108) 109(79) 359(466) 67(150) 70(77) 362(483) 23(51) 18 YDIA ANE L L YLVAN VENUE S A 2(5) 20(12) 5(20) 766(1430) 3(4) 1290(1038) 19 C ENRY VENUE M H A LARIBEL OAD C R 142(88) 856(920) 267(203) 195(482) 956(1200) 107(153) 122(248) 707(1642) 138(269) 399(299) 1606(1081) 130(155) 20 C ENRY VENUE M H A LARATINA VENUE C A 233(323) 943(645) 264(235) 127(175) 530(1014) 154(229) 203(279) 665(1626) 220(220) 84(144) 1707(1298) 262(426) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 35 Figure 5b – 2012 Baseline AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 21 C ENRY VENUE M H A YLVAN VENUE S A 107(297) 1030(1215) 221(366) 110(377) 1110(1206) 134(179) 118(276) 598(1136) 240(340) 241(214) 1258(903) 245(274) 22 C EYNOLDS VENUE M R A YLVAN VENUE S A 37(17) 1(0) 118(50) 2(0) 1(1) 4(4) 2(4) 538(1071) 39(95) 1(1) 929(806) 10(26) 23 ILLBROOK VENUE M A YLVAN VENUE S A 28(29) 3(1) 130(95) 6(16) 0(2) 9(19) 16(14) 455(545) 73(162) 15(10) 513(574) 6(17) 24 25 AKDALE OAD O R RIDGEWOOD AY B W 1144(1041) 86(145) 740(1164) 9(47) 45(13) 83(195) 26 AKDALE OAD O R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 112(288) 868(1330) 506(414) 157(337) 1040(1295) 469(337) 183(513) 726(1315) 264(495) 285(261) 1458(1036) 244(134) 27 AKDALE OAD O R LARATINA VENUE C A 375(341) 602(496) 316(456) 479(331) 126(504) 201(611) 28 AKDALE OAD O R LARIBEL OAD C R 93(198) 638(743) 286(275) 34(79) 706(873) 338(236) 260(390) 590(1241) 195(193) 32(51) 1271(981) 180(116) 29 AKDALE OAD O R RAWFORD OAD C R 400(642) 479(581) 11(9) 42(123) 466(613) 28(5) 19(8) 0(3) 4(7) 95(61) 4(4) 660(569) 30 AKDALE OAD O R LOYD VENUE F A 78(103) 980(1261) 136(210) 179(420) 924(1354) 66(37) 118(132) 188(333) 106(146) 354(293) 304(235) 170(125) 31 AKDALE OAD O R ANCEY RIVE L D 5(17) 1154(1799) 75(103) 45(51) 1555(1623) 41(61) 32(154) 7(35) 41(71) 31(38) 4(23) 45(85) 32 AKDALE OAD O R ABLE VENUE M A 0(6) 1144(1113) 112(114) 2(0) 796(1302) 178(63) 153(111) 4(2) 147(170) 4(6) 1(5) 0(4) 33 AKDALE OAD O R ANOR AK RIVE M O D 36(122) 1030(1503) 2(16) 52(131) 1144(1508) 0(0) 1(2) 7(1) 1(10) 203(72) 18(2) 175(54) 34 AKDALE OAD O R ERYLE VENUE M A 161(532) 983(1317) 14(62) 146(185) 1271(1469) 6(100) 3(0) 0(1) 0(3) 219(305) 0(19) 368(252) 35 AKDALE OAD O R ORRELL OAD M R STOP 41(151) 468(419) 15(16) 35(72) 376(610) 54(42) 17(19) 43(143) 12(35) 107(82) 147(91) 119(85) 36 AKDALE OAD O R RIVATE RIVEWAY P D 938(780) 0(0) 474(1007) 42(61) 38(57) 37 AKDALE OAD O R YLVAN VENUE S A 103(206) 850(874) 543(388) 283(408) 685(921) 124(145) 113(209) 383(839) 273(563) 380(250) 750(615) 177(186) 38 39 40 No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 36 Figure 5c – 2012 Baseline AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 41 OSELLE VENUE R A ELHARBOUR RIVE B D 39(185) 461(598) 20(66) 27(58) 503(650) 17(59) 46(22) 5(1) 66(29) 61(44) 31(15) 99(37) 42 OSELLE VENUE R A RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 77(31) 335(598) 329(214) 176(162) 428(499) 550(255) 126(449) 695(1160) 116(322) 45(65) 1076(949) 51(121) 43 44 OSELLE VENUE R A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 99(151) 362(351) 234(69) 169(193) 306(560) 125(107) 129(177) 558(1155) 32(177) 170(145) 1121(974) 100(119) 45 OSELLE VENUE R A LOYD VENUE F A 40(103) 421(414) 55(94) 139(195) 317(505) 64(68) 72(120) 140(205) 72(116) 147(100) 172(218) 129(78) 46 OSELLE VENUE R A ILLGLEN VENUE H A 0(0) 549(508) 0(0) 256(740) 70(41) 0(0) 156(68) 47 OSELLE VENUE R A ODIAK RIVE K D 0(41) 554(560) 0(46) 401(716) 45(22) 0(4) 67(21) 48 OSELLE VENUE R A ERYLE VENUE M A 58(247) 356(701) 54(162) 62(58) 666(661) 63(58) 50(50) 108(126) 190(86) 90(47) 138(118) 293(166) 49 50 OSELLE VENUE R A LAINVIEW OAD P R 3(6) 259(290) 15(39) 5(35) 372(372) 0(0) 0(0) 24(48) 2(40) 28(25) 21(33) 16(4) 51 OSELLE VENUE R A YLVAN VENUE S A 45(58) 374(374) 239(133) 72(130) 237(405) 107(113) 78(144) 426(508) 64(366) 49(74) 559(589) 44(36) 52 53 54 55 56 57 ERMINAL VENUE T A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 2(2) 88(109) 133(113) 5(10) 91(82) 148(137) 43(146) 636(1205) 122(143) 7(10) 1093(991) 5(4) 58 59 60 OOD ORRELL RIVE W S D YLVAN VENUE S A 27(6) 0(0) 64(71) 1(0) 0(0) 4(0) 4(0) 669(1271) 59(90) 1(1) 1194(892) 7(8) No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 37 The rates were applied to individual uses to estimate project-generated traffic. And the model was adjusted to replicate this traffic. Trip generation estimates are summarized in Table 10. The proposed project is projected to add approximately 80,900 daily trips, 4,600 AM peak-hour trips, and 7,500 PM peak-hour trips to the surrounding roadways by 2012. Table 10 - Year 2012 Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Acronym Amount Units ITE Code Daily In Out Total In Out Total VLDR 30 DU1 210 287 5 17 22 20 10 30 LDR 1,054 DU1 210 10,087 201 589 790 676 390 1,066 MDR 833 DU1 231 7,322 142 417 559 376 275 651 MHDR 504 DU1 220 3,387 50 207 257 202 111 313 NC 0 SqFt2 820 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 74,488 SqFt2 820 3,198 47 30 77 134 145 279 RSC-1 600,000 SqFt2 Ave. 36,520 870 708 1,578 1,558 1,608 3,166 RSC-2 300,000 SqFt2 Ave. 18,260 435 356 791 780 805 1,585 PO 31,363 SqFt2 715 363 50 6 56 8 46 54 Elem. Sch. 13.5 Acres 520 1097 196 162 358 111 128 239 Parks 19 Acres 411 380 38 38 76 38 38 76 TOTAL 80,901 2,034 2,530 4,564 3,903 3,556 7,459 1 DU refers to total number of Dwelling Units 2 SqFt refers to Gross Square Footage, and trip generation rates are calculated per 1,000 square feet. 3 Enrl refers to number of students Trip Distribution The City of Modesto model was used to determine the trip distribution values created by the project. Chapter 2 provides a discussion of the trip distribution values identified in the course of the forecasting. Trip Assignment Trips generated by the initial phases of the proposed project were assigned to the roadway system based on the directions of approach and departure as described above. Project traffic was then added to the year 2012 baseline (without project) condition. Figures 6a, 6b and 6c show the resultant year 2012 baseline with-project traffic volumes. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 38 Figure 6a – 2012 With Project AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 1 RIA AY A W YLVAN VENUE S A 31(10) 7(5) 239(79) 24(62) 4(22) 122(99) 61(115) 586(1171) 230(99) 15(21) 905(950) 13(21) 2 OYCE ANE B L YLVAN VENUE S A 21(12) 150(6) 39(27) 99(46) 26(8) 40(16) 191(43) 779(1953) 62(66) 241(37) 1583(1362) 16(14) 3 LAUS OAD C R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 225(307) 1356(1646) 399(347) 169(255) 1405(1410) 275(302) 162(261) 339(545) 410(543) 164(195) 554(547) 361(341) 4 LAUS OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R 61(187) 614(778) 379(330) 11(26) 660(784) 518(445) 248(445) 176(349) 274(556) 25(22) 312(255) 97(165) 5 LAUS OAD C R UTURE LOYD VENUE F F A 58(60) 1025(1100) 97(230) 179(115) 873(1189) 55(230) 153(111) 122(76) 235(181) 64(181) 17(101) 35(74) 6 LAUS OAD C R ILNES OAD M R 64(119) 1590(1861) 63(143) 1486(1878) 84(65) 127(49) 7 LAUS OAD C R LAINVIEW OAD P R 5(2) 1014(1227) 65(17) 2(0) 945(1271) 40(111) 43(12) 0(0) 54(115) 5(7) 8 LAUS OAD C R ANTA E VENUE S F A 0(40) 1063(1180) 186(184) 8(21) 976(1342) 6(6) 0(14) 14(130) 131(121) 13(46) 51(182) 11(35) 9 LAUS OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 1029(1213 ) 6 23(813) 1042(1324) 73(191) 167(151) 562(664) 10 O FFEE OAD C R LARATINA VENUE C A 105(228) 458(496) 591(421) 72(168) 503(524) 148(185) 185(276) 547(1268) 259(693) 45(71) 1293(855) 219(164) 11 O FFEE OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 297(310) 320(366) 173(154) 25(60) 487(284) 166(74) 0(35) 788(1761) 76(376) 89(82) 1958(1419) 142(376) 12 O FFEE OAD C R LOYD VENUE F A 68(172) 900(1185) 62(112) 91(151) 1207(1015) 167(130) 189(151) 161(363) 56(79) 104(116) 224(246) 185(119) 13 OFFEE OAD C R ABLE VENUE M A 47(169) 874(961) 12(12) 260(302) 705(1009) 1(0) 2(4) 1(6) 12(9) 279(126) 9(9) 236(109) 14 OFFEE OAD C R UMBLE OAD R R 125(120) 1020(1216) 90(145) 39(65) 1130(1118) 108(134) 149(141) 128(191) 146(157) 110(67) 226(111) 169(75) 15 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 186(240) 703(759) 325(418) 107(266) 705(686) 172(236) 134(252) 510(1149) 273(340) 180(192) 802(844) 300(189) 16 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN EADOWS RIVE S M D 20(59) 1048(1101) 43(142) 23(95) 895(1085) 23(28) 9(18) 10(319) 103(111) 36(27) 18(20) 54(41) 17 ITT OAD L R YLVAN VENUE S A 58(40) 9(24) 167(106) 58(97) 0(17) 37(81) 136(45) 554(579) 67(160) 77(111) 453(716) 21(47) 18 YDIA ANE L L YLVAN VENUE S A 21(19) 0(1) 839(1516) 1(6) 1344(1192) 19 C ENRY VENUE M H A LARIBEL OAD C R 54(92) 793(954) 590(220) 249(629) 895(1188) 50(127) 117(372) 642(1626) 138(290) 535(375) 1420(1027) 327(181) 20 C ENRY VENUE M H A LARATINA VENUE C A 305(283) 861(699) 367(174) 147(275) 551(1009) 253(219) 209(263) 904(1863) 194(163) 351(166) 1681(1473) 249(410) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 39 Figure 6b – 2012 With Project AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 36 AKDALE OAD O R RIVATE RIVEWAY P D 0(0) 1210(1231) 0(0) 0(0) 624(963) 38(19) 21 C ENRY VENUE M H A YLVAN VENUE S A 124(332) 1050(1196) 213(362) 108(300) 1164(1237) 90(172) 117(273) 664(1267) 229(297) 320(220) 1357(902) 255(289) 22 C EYNOLDS VENUE M R A YLVAN VENUE S A 38(21) 4(4) 119(48) 53(38) 4(4) 124(80) 38(140) 584(972) 47(119) 34(75) 792(858) 15(25) 23 ILLBRO OK VENUE M A YLVAN VENUE S A 32(25) 5(2) 135(122) 4(16) 3(3) 3(13) 1(18) 675(640) 94(181) 11(14) 601(778) 7(15) 24 25 AKDALE OAD O R RIDGEWOOD AY B W 56(142) 1114(1376) 94(76) 110(499) 1024(1145) 19(33) 299(268) 11(24) 71(191) 109(124) 4(14) 328(199) 26 AKDALE OAD O R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 93(285) 976(1478) 488(415) 175(286) 1178(1392) 396(311) 196(470) 732(1322) 260(486) 270(269) 1528(1101) 188(120) 27 AKDALE OAD O R LARATINA VENUE C A 106(138) 650(607) 493(543) 283(606) 311(459) 34(0) 6(12) 480(1252) 240(398) 134(186) 912(696) 113(123) 28 AKDALE OAD O R LARIBEL OAD C R 0(445) 719(753) 529(376) 34(247) 715(916) 355(403) 271(383) 265(1068) 278(434) 75(59) 1268(808) 366(0) 29 AKDALE OAD O R RAWFORD OAD C R 400(594) 572(634) 11(9) 42(140) 453(777) 28(5) 19(8) 0(3) 4(7) 95(67) 4(4) 698(620) 30 AKDALE OAD O R LOYD VENUE F A 88(136) 1061(1421) 139(219) 190(429) 1112(1405) 95(32) 111(149) 201(331) 105(142) 326(311) 320(254) 178(117) 31 AKDALE OAD O R ANCEY RIVE L D 14(23) 1250(1902) 75(108) 45(43) 1653(1650) 134(59) 29(253) 7(39) 39(73) 34(35) 6(22) 36(89) 32 AKDALE OAD O R ABLE VENUE M A 183(138) 1262(1373) 106(97) 61(69) 888(1235) 174(19) 164(136) 40(23) 132(171) 20(31) 6(74) 105(405) 33 AKDALE OAD O R ANOR AK RIVE M O D 33(116) 1115(1701) 2(16) 51(128) 1344(1555) 0(0) 1(2) 7(1) 1(10) 201(71) 18(2) 170(54) 34 AKDALE OAD O R ERYLE VENUE M A 169(522) 1070(1525) 14(62) 147(190) 1467(1491) 6(100) 3(0) 0(1) 0(3) 215(303) 0(19) 362(247) 35 AKDALE OAD O R ORRELL OAD M R STOP 40(203) 560(424) 17(17) 35(0) 373(771) 58(42) 17(20) 42(201) 12(41) 113(83) 131(93) 109(100) 37 AKDALE OAD O R YLVAN VENUE S A 115(267) 840(1039) 643(381) 288(303) 896(1071) 273(216) 213(452) 439(973) 275(493) 322(238) 826(782) 234(201) 38 AKDALE OAD O R IVOLI T E 81(239) 909(1035) 0(263) 617(1086) 323(163) 0(65) 39 AKDALE OAD O R RIVEWAY RSC-1 W. D 1 126(246) 986(882) 0(0) 640(1009) 254(384) 40 No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 40 Figure 6c – 2012 With Project AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 41 OSELLE VEN UE R A ELHARBOUR RIVE B D 43(207) 489(664) 18(61) 30(54) 498(735) 15(87) 54(20) 6(0) 66(20) 64(54) 33(10) 101(37) 42 OSELLE VEN UE R A RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 71(47) 364(656) 344(220) 130(130) 472(594) 549(259) 126(447) 676(1153) 140(283) 44(46) 1061(998) 85(138) 43 44 OSELLE VEN UE R A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 143(206) 452(372) 0(0) 169(182) 333(583) 196(200) 155(212) 606(1568) 0(0) 163(130) 1448(1035) 148(157) 45 OSELLE VENUE R A LOYD VENUE F A 37(101) 455(497) 58(102) 159(199) 325(655) 89(49) 103(145) 139(197) 47(95) 123(118) 168(223) 129(80) 46 OSELLE VENUE R A ILLGLEN VENUE H A 9(16) 601(667) 87(52) 0(38) 297(860) 79(27) 71(37) 0(7) 160(71) 35(23) 6(0) 50(30) 47 OSELLE VENUE R A ODIAK RIVE K D 22(50) 584(667) 87(43) 0(37) 463(853) 53(68) 46(43) 5(1) 62(19) 55(28) 2(0) 31(28) 48 OSELLE VENUE R A ERYLE VENUE M A 66(208) 378(783) 51(156) 76(75) 655(725) 62(59) 53(57) 107(126) 191(80) 97(44) 123(112) 300(175) 49 50 OSELLE VENUE R A LAINVIEW OAD P R 0(0) 259(290) 0(17) 5(35) 372(372) 0(0) 0(0) 52(125) 0(10) 28(25) 62(70) 0(0) 51 OSELLE VENUE R A YLVAN VENUE S A 44(78) 428(456) 236(189) 167(227) 277(477) 25(80) 66(31) 557(509) 42(421) 144(200) 544(692) 52(32) 52 53 OSELLE VENUE R A IVOLI T D 51(106) 1195(1043) 15(42) 25(21) 564(1599) 35(102) 90(55) 0(9) 39(26) 15(40) 0(21) 140(127) 54 RIVEWAY RSC-1 D 1 LARATINA VENUE C A 39(112) 637(1530) 232(465) 1159(1004) 0(0) 55 RIVEWAY RSC-1 D 2 LARATINA VENUE C A 28(80) 333(493) 451(1285) 225(356) 827(512) 160(203) 56 RIVEWAY RSC-1 D 3 LARATINA C 53(146) 310(1043) 169(322) 986(715) 1(3) 57 ERMINAL VENUE T A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 0(2) 89(108) 108(93) 5(31) 87(81) 150(145) 48(178) 673(1338) 135(132) 12(22) 1194(1024) 3(4) 58 IVOLI T A LARATINA VENUE C A 19(13) 506(347) 11(29) 481(370) 206(557) 158(632) 59 60 OOD ORRELL RIVE W S D YLVAN VENUE S A 33(9) 3(11) 52(88) 34(82) 0(10) 33(26) 13(24) 735(1303) 64(120) 37(83) 1231(1008) 6(23) No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 41 Year 2012 Intersection Levels of Service The scenarios developed for the year 2012 include the 2012 baseline without the project as well as year 2012 with the project. Service levels were calculated for the study intersections using the 2012 baseline and project traffic volumes and the planned and project roadway improvements. Table 11 presents the LOS results; the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in the technical appendix. Delay increases due to the project and the impacts associated with the project are also presented in Table 11. Table 11 shows the conditions before and after the project traffic is added. 2012 Baseline Conditions The following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2012 baseline conditions during either the AM or PM peak hours. Signalized Intersections Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Mc Henry Avenue at Claribel Road Mc Henry Avenue at Claratina Avenue Mc Henry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Oakdale Road at Claribel Avenue Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Stop Controlled Intersections Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Coffee Road at Claribel Road Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue Mc Reynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 42 2012 Project Conditions The following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2012 project conditions during either the AM or PM peak hours. It should be noted that the project includes intersection modifications from the base condition, such as signalization or the construction of a roundabout. Therefore, the levels of service under the project condition may be improved. The tables provide details of the types of intersection controls assumed under both the with-project and without-project conditions. Signalized Intersections Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue McHenry Avenue / Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Roselle Road at Briggsmore Avenue Stop Controlled Intersections Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Roundabout Intersections Coffee Road and Claratina Avenue Stop Control Intersections That Meet Delay or Peak Hour Warrant The following locations experience sub-standard, that is, LOS E or F conditions during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Further, each intersection meets either the delay, peak hour volume or both signal warrants under with-project conditions. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 43 Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Claus Road at Santa Fe Road Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Year 2012 Roadway Segment Levels of Service Roadway segment V/C ratios were calculated based on the existing volumes and segment capacities presented in Table 4. These capacities are conservative as they are based on the number of lanes on the mainline segments and do not necessarily consider additional turn lanes (and their added capacity) at the approaches to intersections. The volume to capacity ratios and corresponding LOS values are shown in Table 12. 2012 Baseline Conditions The following roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2012 baseline conditions. Refer to Table 12 for details regarding impacts along specific roadway segments. Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue – Roselle Avenue to Oakdale Road Oakdale Road – Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue 2012 Project Conditions Portions of the following roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2012 project conditions. Refer to Table 12 for details regarding impacts along specific roadway segments. Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Sylvan Avenue – Roselle Avenue to Oakdale Road ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 44 Table 11 - Comparison of 2012 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Levels of Service 2012 Baseline No Project 2012 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Impact Y/N? 1 Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 69.5 (482.9) F(F) 18.1 (505.5) C(F) Roundabout 3.5 A 3.9 A N 2 Boyce Lane at Sylvan Avenue Signal 24.6 C 7.7 A Signal 26.7 C 7.6 A N 3 Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 70.5 E 93.4 F Signal 71.1 E 112.7 F Y 4 Claus Road at Claribel Road Signal 51.4 D 85.3 F Signal 53.0 D 86.1 F 5 Claus Road at Future Floyd Avenue Signal 17.4 B 24.9 C Signal 35.6 D 51.6 D N 6 Claus Road at Milnes Road Unsignalized 349.0 (5462.4) F(F) 211.7 (6939.1) F(F) Unsignalized 395.1 (6388.2) F(F) 383.0 (>9999) F(F) Y 7 Claus Road at Plainview Road Unsignalized 32.6 (722.7) D(F) 23.1 (1548.7) C(F) Unsignalized 16.6 (356.6) C(F) 16.0 (1191.2) C(F) 8 Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Unsignalized 135.0 (4275.4) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized 71.2 (2027.4) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) 9 Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 136.7 F 247.1 F Signal 197.9 F 337.9 F Y 10 Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Roundabout 7.2 A 18.0 C Roundabout 18.6 C 58.9 F Y 11 Coffee Road at Claribel Road All-way STOP 1074.2 F 1293.0 F All-way STOP 1239.5 F 1524.2 F Y 12 Coffee Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 26.5 C 32.0 C Signal 27.0 C 32.1 C N 13 Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Signal 63.3 E 32.7 C Signal 71.2 E 34.2 C Y 14 Coffee Road at Rumble Road Signal 29.3 C 29.0 C Signal 28.8 C 29.2 C N 15 Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 37.7 D 72.3 E Signal 41.1 D 77.9 E Y 16 Coffee Road at Sylvan Meadows Drive Signal 12.9 B 24.6 C Signal 12.7 B 26.3 C N 17 Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 2.8 A 2.9 A Roundabout 3.0 A 3.1 A N 18 Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 0.3 ( 30.0) A(D) 0.5 ( 58.9) A(F) Unsignalized 0.1 ( 14.4) A(B) 0.1 ( 13.4) A(B) N 19 McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road Signal 257.7 F 251.1 F Signal 285.7 F 288.4 F Y 20 McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue Signal 91.3 F 142.7 F Signal 137.3 F 167.6 F Y 21 McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Signal 47.0 D 94.4 F Signal 55.5 E 97.2 F Y 22 McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 21.9 (234.1) C(F) 9.0 (272.8) A(F) Roundabout 3.0 A 3.2 A N 23 Millbrook Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 2.3 A 2.4 A Roundabout 2.5 A 2.6 A N 24 N. NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 25 Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Unsignalized 9.2(145.2) A(F) 21.3(257.2) C(F) Signal 32.5 C 54.6 D N 26 Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 43.4 D 45.2 D Signal 48.7 D 50.0 D N 27 Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Unsignalized 101.1 (613.1) F(F) 835.6 (2045.8) F(F) Signal 28.2 C 40.8 D N 28 Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Signal 177.8 F 218.9 F Signal 228.9 F 181.2 F Y 29 Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Signal 28.5 C 31.3 C Signal 29.6 C 35.6 D N 30 Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 33.6 C 44.8 D Signal 33.5 C 54.1 D N 31 Oakdale Road at Lancey Drive Signal 8.7 A 15.8 B Signal 7.8 A 20.7 C N 32 Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Signal 43.9 D 52.9 D Signal 22.8 C 87.1 F Y 33 Oakdale Road at Manor Oak Drive Signal 16.1 B 9.0 A Signal 15.2 B 8.6 A N 34 Oakdale Road at Merle Avenue Signal 17.0 B 19.4 B Signal 16.2 B 19.5 B N ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 45 2012 Baseline No Project 2012 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Impact Y/N? 35 Oakdale Road at Morrill Road All-way STOP 35.2 E 96.3 F All-way STOP 52.7 F 152.8 F Y 36 Oakdale Road at Private Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0(0.0) A(A) 0.0(0.0) A(A) N 37 Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 36.8 D 55.4 E Signal 53.6 D 75.1 E Y 38 Oakdale Road at Tivoli E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0(0.0) A(A) 0.0(0.0) A(A) N 39 Oakdale Road RSC-1 W. Driveway 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 1.9 ( 15.0) A(B) 3.3 ( 21.7) A(C) N 40 Roselle Avenue and MHDR-2 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 41 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Unsignalized 13.5 ( 76.3) B(F) 6.6 ( 78.6) A(F) Unsignalized 16.5 ( 91.7) C(F) 7.7 (104.7) A(F) 42 Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 93.1 F 77.6 E Signal 92.3 F 90.1 F Y 43 Roselle Avenue at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 44 Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 677.9 F 900.6 F All-way STOP 922.0 F 1090.4 F Y 45 Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue Roundabout 2.2 A 2.5 A Roundabout 2.3 A 2.7 A N 46 Roselle Avenue at Hillglen Avenue Roundabout 5.6 A 7.4 A Roundabout 2.7 A 2.7 A N 47 Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive Roundabout 5.8 A 8.4 A Roundabout 2.4 A 2.6 A N 48 Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue Signal 34.8 C 29.9 C Signal 35.1 D 29.9 C N 49 Roselle Avenue at NC-1 E. Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 50 Roselle Avenue at Plainview Road Unsignalized 2.0 ( 15.0) A(C) 3.4 ( 16.6) A(C) Unsignalized 2.8 ( 15.5) A(C) 5.5 ( 22.9) A(C) N 51 Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 2.6 A 3.1 A Roundabout 2.9 A 3.6 A N 52 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 53 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 3.6 A 5.6 A N 54 RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.2 ( 9.7) A(A) 0.5 ( 13.9) A(B) N 55 RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 17.7 B 23.8 C N 56 RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 ( 9.1) A(A) 0.8 ( 12.1) A(B) N 57 Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 339.0 F 576.5 F All-way STOP 388.6 F 673.0 F Y 58 Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 31.5 C 34.2 C N 59 Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a N 60 Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 13.4 (296.9) B(F) 13.1 (395.6) B(F) Roundabout 3.1 A 4.0 A N Note: n/a = not applicable * =>9999 indicates overflow delay. The delay calculations for the HCM 2000 methodology are incapable of quantifying delay. Estimated delay would exceed 9999 seconds. = Project traffic does not cause critical delay to increase by more than five seconds at signalized intersections or 30 seconds on minor approaches at unsignalized intersections. = Project traffic contributes more than 10 vehicles per lane at unsignalized intersection operating at LOS F with incremental delay less than 30 seconds. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 46 Table 12 - Comparison of 2012 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Roadway 2012 Baseline 2012 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS AM PM Impact Y/N? Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road EB 1 rural road 1.139 F 2.360 F 1 rural road 1.507 F 2.690 F 0.368 0.330 Y McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road WB 1 rural road 2.281 F 2.076 F 1 rural road 2.534 F 2.277 F 0.253 0.201 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road EB 1 rural road 0.363 A 1.242 F 1 rural road 0.804 D 1.849 F 0.441 0.607 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road WB 1 rural road 1.362 F 0.999 E 1 rural road 1.730 F 1.211 F 0.368 0.212 Y Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.386 A 0.887 D n/a n/a N Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.429 A 0.372 A n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway # 1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.300 A 0.730 C n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.429 A 0.372 A n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.213 A 0.607 B n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.366 A 0.265 A n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.161 A 0.528 A n/a n/a N RSC-1 driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.366 A 0.266 A n/a n/a N Roselle Avenue Future Claratina Avenue to Sylvan Avenue NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.158 A 0.169 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.650 B 0.596 A 0.492 0.427 N Future Claratina Avenue to Sylvan Avenue SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.090 A 0.221 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.312 A 0.876 D 0.223 0.656 N Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.284 A 0.509 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.333 A 0.481 A 0.049 -0.029 N Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.453 A 0.418 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.403 A 0.481 A -0.050 0.063 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.290 A 0.585 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.007 A 0.002 A -0.283 -0.583 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.526 A 0.430 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.002 A 0.002 A -0.524 -0.428 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.379 A 0.643 B 2 unsignalized arterial 0.439 A 0.693 B 0.060 0.050 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.599 A 0.455 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.633 B 0.564 A 0.034 0.110 N Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane EB 1 unsignalized arterial 0.732 C 1.361 F 1 unsignalized arterial 0.812 D 1.447 F 0.080 0.086 Y Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane WB 1 unsignalized arterial 1.262 F 0.963 E 1 unsignalized arterial 1.316 F 1.122 F 0.054 0.159 Y Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road EB 1 unsignalized arterial 0.769 C 1.453 F 1 unsignalized arterial 0.842 D 1.543 F 0.073 0.090 Y Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road WB 2 signalized arterial 0.871 D 0.701 C 2 signalized arterial 0.921 E 0.814 D 0.050 0.113 Y ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 47 2012 Baseline 2012 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS v/c LOS Impact Y/N? Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way NB 1 signalized arterial 1.791 F 1.333 F 3 signalized arterial 0.386 A 0.887 D n/a n/a N Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way SB 2 signalized arterial 0.728 C 0.983 E 3 signalized arterial 0.515 A 0.372 A n/a n/a N Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E NB 1 rural road 1.321 F 1.171 F 3 signalized arterial 0.300 A 0.730 C n/a n/a N Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E SB 2 signalized arterial 0.499 A 0.807 D 3 signalized arterial 0.515 A 0.372 A n/a n/a N Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue NB 1 signalized arterial 1.248 F 1.097 F 3 signalized arterial 0.213 A 0.607 B n/a n/a N Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue SB 2 rural road 0.283 A 0.563 A 3 signalized arterial 0.439 A 0.265 A n/a n/a N Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue NB 1 rural road 1.446 F 1.367 F 3 signalized arterial 0.161 A 0.528 A n/a n/a N Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue SB 1 signalized arterial 1.301 F 1.820 F 3 signalized arterial 0.439 A 0.266 A n/a n/a N n/a = not applicable does not exist in baseline ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 48 CHAPTER 5 - YEAR 2017 CONDITIONS Year 2017 conditions represent near-term conditions with planned and financed transportation system improvements, traffic volume increases due to expected local development plus regional growth, and the full build out of the proposed project with a total of 3,145 residential units, 179,032 square feet of neighborhood and standard commercial use, 900,000 square feet of regional commercial use, 31,363 square feet of office, a 850 student elementary school and 19 acres of park. LOS analysis results for the key intersections and roadway segments were used as the basis for determining near-term (2017) project impacts as discussed in Chapter 7. Year 2017 Baseline Transportation System Improvements For the year 2017, the roadway and intersection improvements used for the 2012 analysis were maintained without any additional improvements. In the 2017 scenario southbound Oakdale Road between Claratina Avenue and Sylvan Avenue is assumed to be constructed to 3 lanes as a signalized arterial as would be funded by the land development on the west side of that road. Assuming no project, these improvements are consistent with the assumptions in the City Model for the segment of Oakdale Road from Claratina Avenue to Sylvan Road and with the Transportation Diagram in the General Plan. Figures 7a, 7b and 7c show the 2017 AM and PM peak hour traffic without the project. The assumed geometry at each intersection is also shown. Year 2017 Project Related Transportation Improvements The proposed project will create new intersections at seven locations between 2012 and 2017: Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue NC-1 North Driveway at Claratina Avenue NC-1 East Driveway at Claratina Avenue Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C Roselle Avenue at MHDR-2 Driveway Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road D Claratina Avenue at Roselle Avenue Roadway improvements identified for 2012 with project conditions would be included for 2017 with project conditions including widening of Oakdale Road, Roselle Avenue, and Sylvan Avenue. Claratina Avenue will be extended from Oakdale Avenue to Roselle as a six lane signalized arterial. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 49 Figure 7a – 2017 Baseline AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 1 RIA AY A W YLVAN VENUE S A 36(22) 0(0) 296(68) 0(0) 0(2) 0(0) 0(0) 608(1388) 273(121) 0(1) 1083(1066) 11(23) 2 OYCE ANE B L YLVAN VENUE S A 22(13) 152(6) 51(57) 101(45) 27(10) 44(37) 203(54) 659(1771) 68(112) 221(26) 1498(1282) 16(16) 3 LAUS OAD C R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 340(456) 1878(1933) 516(492) 174(338) 1543(1898) 341(405) 305(359) 385(636) 591(711) 204(235) 630(655) 490(420) 4 LAUS OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R 64(156) 1087(1149) 658(540) 11(27) 940(1027) 690(581) 349(552) 185(362) 460(938) 27(29) 367(319) 128(200) 5 LAUS OAD C R UTURE LOYD VENUE F F A 0(0) 1803(1597) 149(388) 0(0) 1203(1912) 119(328) 282(208) 0(0) 365(294) 119(248) 38(202) 58(125) 6 LAUS OAD C R ILNES OAD M R 65(120) 2408(2297) 63(145) 1812(2613) 85(66) 128(49) 7 LAUS OAD C R LAINVIEW OAD P R 7(3) 1733(1784) 132(42) 3(0) 1407(1914) 84(170) 76(21) 0(0) 98(199) 7(9) 8 LAUS OAD C R ANTA E VENUE S F A 0(42) 1843(1778) 195(194) 8(22) 1462(2051) 9(9) 0(17) 15(137) 138(127) 14(48) 54(191) 11(37) 9 LAUS OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 1744(1733) 722(687) 1496(2005) 109(240) 206(211) 422(696) 10 OFFEE OAD C R LARATINA VENUE C A 119(238) 656(642) 758(519) 79(249) 570(590) 193(157) 194(402) 362(1429) 290(817) 43(68) 1806(1154) 252(319) 11 OFFEE OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 324(473) 403(412) 415(206) 17(27) 502(503) 158(148) 75(165) 1224(2324) 177(645) 28(51) 2675(2042) 208(163) 12 OFFEE OAD C R LOYD VENUE F A 64(148) 979(1205) 84(135) 99(187) 1200(1096) 149(117) 194(147) 149(371) 69(78) 114(125) 227(240) 176(116) 13 OFFEE OAD C R ABLE VENUE M A 48(183) 1097(1122) 13(13) 274(327) 798(1234) 1(0) 3(5) 1(7) 13(9) 305(182) 10(9) 254(115) 14 OFFEE OAD C R UMBLE OAD R R 141(124) 1120(1255) 90(148) 47(79) 1086(1276) 109(137) 154(144) 129(195) 147(160) 121(75) 227(113) 180(71) 15 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 143(194) 810(772) 327(425) 135(289) 710(809) 186(241) 161(280) 512(1168) 274(346) 201(150) 806(859) 242(148) 16 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN EADOWS RIVE S M D 39(46) 1203(1188) 44(143) 24(33) 986(1324) 24(29) 9(19) 11(317) 103(111) 39(28) 18(23) 67(67) 17 ITT OAD L R YLVAN VENUE S A 68(42) 20(30) 165(113) 83(123) 4(14) 92(176) 181(130) 386(499) 72(161) 113(128) 395(525) 25(55) 18 YDIA ANE L L YLVAN VENUE S A 3(9) 28(16) 7(29) 816(1634) 5(6) 1471(1220) 19 C ENRY VENUE M H A LARIBEL OAD C R 222(111) 1014(949) 385(242) 276(609) 1089(1332) 131(182) 122(330) 1032(2525) 165(387) 546(431) 2510(1694) 197(237) 20 C ENRY VENUE M H A LARATINA VENUE C A 263(472) 1373(947) 427(373) 131(204) 729(1449) 193(318) 275(373) 687(2160) 356(337) 92(166) 2378(1501) 391(513) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 50 Figure 7b – 2017 Baseline AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 21 C ENRY VENUE M H A YLVAN VENUE S A 107(321) 1331(1397) 229(373) 112(459) 1273(1456) 167(206) 119(323) 601(1250) 241(371) 335(247) 1437(924) 256(295) 22 C EYNOLDS VENUE M R A YLVAN VENUE S A 44(23) 1(0) 119(60) 2(0) 1(2) 4(5) 2(5) 665(1285) 39(113) 1(2) 1134(1024) 10(36) 23 ILLBROOK VEN UE M A YLVAN VENUE S A 38(41) 5(2) 178(136) 11(28) 1(4) 16(32) 28(23) 564(654) 90(224) 26(17) 592(707) 7(24) 24 25 AKDALE OAD O R RIDGEWOOD AY B W 1681(1443) 88(201) 1004(1655) 10(75) 74(18) 85(271) 26 AKDALE OAD O R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 152(357) 1015(1381) 555(443) 202(423) 1108(1427) 479(364) 191(537) 898(1646) 269(545) 359(339) 1733(1377) 301(181) 27 AKDALE OAD O R LARATINA VENUE C A 642(584) 1032(850) 542(781) 821(567) 216(865) 344(1048) 28 AKDALE OAD O R LARIBEL OAD C R 111(266) 812(951) 437(428) 40(104) 838(1197) 513(364) 399(582) 879(1901) 292(301) 40(57) 1936(1435) 215(145) 29 AKDALE OAD O R RAWFORD OAD C R 591(920) 620(686) 13(11) 54(148) 553(800) 34(6) 22(9) 0(3) 5(8) 113(71) 5(5) 856(853) 30 AKDALE OAD O R LOYD VENUE F A 82(104) 1131(1418) 143(211) 202(535) 992(1533) 69(44) 146(132) 197(334) 111(146) 436(391) 320(248) 179(125) 31 AKDALE OAD O R ANCEY RIVE L D 6(17) 1372(1992) 81(103) 56(53) 1658(1892) 47(62) 33(168) 7(36) 42(72) 32(39) 4(23) 46(86) 32 AKDALE OAD O R ABLE VENUE M A 0(6) 1688(1552) 113(114) 2(0) 988(1880) 179(84) 154(111) 152(171) 4(6) 1(5) 0(4) 33 AKDALE OAD O R ANOR AK RIVE M O D 38(123) 1217(1656) 2(17) 52(132) 1223(1696) 0(0) 1(2) 7(1) 1(10) 205(72) 19(2) 176(54) 34 AKDALE OAD O R ERYLE VENUE M A 164(536) 1152(1471) 15(65) 149(187) 1369(1713) 7(101) 3(0) 0(1) 0(3) 224(307) 0(20) 388(271) 35 AKDALE OAD O R ORRELL OAD M R STOP 54(203) 554(431) 22(22) 38(74) 407(759) 59(43) 19(19) 46(147) 16(60) 116(84) 159(94) 169(116) 36 AKDALE OAD O R RIVATE RIVEWAY P D 1609(1337) 0(0) 813(1726) 73(104) 65(97) 37 AKDALE OAD O R YLVAN VENUE S A 109(222) 1136(1096) 586(393) 322(546) 764(1218) 143(184) 146(261) 390(899) 277(595) 506(337) 806(684) 183(217) 38 39 40 No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 51 Figure 7c – 2017 Baseline AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 41 OSELLE VENUE R A ELHARBOUR RIVE B D 40(188) 601(741) 21(72) 28(59) 592(827) 17(71) 74(32) 5(1) 84(40) 61(45) 32(16) 100(37) 42 OSELLE VENUE R A RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 106(40) 457(725) 411(280) 224(197) 437(643) 622(318) 167(533) 929(1457) 123(428) 61(82) 1343(1295) 57(170) 43 44 OSELLE VENUE R A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 154(216) 526(466) 356(95) 226(284) 342(803) 157(151) 171(254) 823(1751) 41(263) 242(200) 1673(1388) 138(171) 45 OSELLE VENUE R A LOYD VENUE F A 53(127) 529(498) 65(102) 168(268) 355(613) 68(84) 88(141) 180(247) 86(120) 168(146) 184(298) 144(105) 46 OSELLE VENUE R A ILLGLEN VENUE H A 22(55) 741(617) 89(70) 14(56) 278(939) 75(29) 71(43) 2(8) 156(70) 65(34) 7(8) 80(38) 47 OSELLE VENUE R A ODIAK RIVE K D 24(70) 705(674) 87(43) 20(79) 453(884) 52(78) 59(32) 1(7) 68(33) 69(41) 3(5) 60(47) 48 OSELLE VENUE R A ERYLE VENUE M A 62(302) 501(874) 58(163) 64(59) 765(853) 65(59) 51(51) 111(127) 194(89) 92(48) 141(119) 318(211) 49 50 OSELLE VENUE R A LAINVIEW OAD P R 4(6) 275(295) 26(67) 6(54) 395(379) 0(0) 0(0) 41(83) 3(68) 30(36) 35(57) 20(4) 51 OSELLE VENUE R A YLVAN VENUE S A 59(70) 506(456) 312(162) 90(179) 261(546) 134(157) 101(183) 532(637) 70(445) 62(95) 678(746) 46(44) 52 53 54 55 56 57 ERMINAL VENUE T A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 3(2) 98(110) 160(144) 5(12) 102(85) 166(164) 49(166) 964(1872) 148(205) 8(11) 1696(1457) 5(5) 58 59 60 OOD ORRELL RIVE W S D YLVAN VENUE S A 31(7) 0(0) 73(79) 2(0) 0(0) 4(0) 4(0) 742(1488) 66(109) 2(2) 1376(1107) 8(13) No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 52 Year 2017 Project Traffic The amount of traffic associated with the project was estimated using the process described in Chapter 2. Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan was estimated from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition) for the variety of uses listed below. The project will generate about 91,000 daily and 5,100 AM and 8,400 PM peak hour trips. The details of the trip generation are shown in Table 13. Table 13 - Year 2017 Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Acronym Amount Units ITE Code Daily In Out Total In Out Total VLDR 30 DU1 210 287 5 17 22 20 10 30 LDR 1,322 DU1 210 12,652 252 739 991 848 489 1,337 MDR 833 DU1 231 7,322 142 417 559 376 275 650 MHDR 960 DU1 220 6,451 96 394 490 384 211 595 NC 104,544 SqFt2 820 4,489 66 42 108 188 204 392 C 74,488 SqFt2 820 3,198 47 30 77 134 145 279 RSC-1 600,000 SqFt2 Ave. 36,520 870 708 1,578 1,558 1,608 3,168 RSC-2 300,000 SqFt2 Ave. 18,260 435 356 791 780 804 1,584 PO 31,363 SqFt2 715 363 50 6 56 8 46 54 Elem. Sch. 850 Enrl3 520 1,097 196 162 358 111 128 238 Parks/Public Infrastructure 19 Acres 411 380 38 38 76 38 38 76 TOTAL 91,019 2,197 2,909 5,106 4,445 3,958 8,403 1 DU refers to total number of Dwelling Units 2 SqFt refers to Gross Square Footage, and trip generation rates are calculated per 1,000 square feet. 3 Enrl refers to number of students Figures 8a, 8b and 8c show the 2017 AM and PM peak hour traffic with the project. The assumed geometry at each intersection is also shown. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 53 Figure 8a – 2017 With Project AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 1 RIA AY A W YLVAN VENUE S A 29(26) 22(11) 283(91) 30(35) 8(24) 126(163) 123(174) 549(1088) 262(119) 10(44) 819(911) 22(18) 2 OYCE ANE B L YLVAN VENUE S A 22(14) 152(6) 48(48) 103(47) 26(11) 44(33) 202(49) 861(2034) 70(99) 242(35) 1659(1580) 17(18) 3 LAUS OAD C R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 331(416) 1987(2077) 504(481) 208(358) 1737(2053) 313(405) 272(337) 390(681) 526(644) 213(281) 638(670) 458(420) 4 LAUS OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R 70(167) 1031(1048) 642(544) 14(31) 880(978) 746(657) 442(701) 203(394) 477(1022) 29(26) 405(357) 108(196) 5 LAUS OAD C R UTURE LOYD VENUE F F A 110(95) 1920(1736) 141(413) 302(191) 1429(2067) 115(342) 281(196) 226(116) 347(276) 110(271) 37(192) 59(119) 6 LAUS OAD C R ILNES OAD M R 65(120) 2502(2497) 63(145) 2034(2827) 85(66) 128(49) 7 LAUS OAD C R LAINVIEW OAD P R 7(3) 1666(1712) 143(35) 3(0) 1361(1952) 67(162) 77(6) 0(0) 90(198) 7(9) 8 LAUS OAD C R ANTA E VENUE S F A 0(42) 1812(1683) 195(194) 8(22) 1396(2111) 9(9) 0(17) 15(137) 138(127) 14(48) 54(191) 11(37) 9 LAUS OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 1710(1677) 850(943) 1431(2034) 108(271) 209(171) 711(881) 10 O FFEE OAD C R LARATINA VENUE C A 186(284) 627(724) 647(465) 128(346) 589(680) 136(181) 237(338) 847(2002) 274(718) 61(114) 2348(1551) 320(402) 11 O FFEE OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 360(513) 397(384) 404(226) 32(112) 487(446) 129(45) 24(140) 1215(2605) 142(623) 95(75) 2837(2154) 224(336) 12 O FFEE OAD C R LOYD VENUE F A 67(173) 1003(1246) 81(122) 98(177) 1228(1107) 161(147) 219(187) 155(376) 54(60) 114(114) 229(248) 185(140) 13 OFFEE OAD C R ABLE VENUE M A 55(184) 1076(1192) 13(13) 276(326) 842(1261) 1(0) 3(5) 1(7) 13(9) 310(155) 10(9) 258(113) 14 OFFEE OAD C R UMBLE OAD R R 122(151) 1202(1317) 90(148) 44(61) 1133(1326) 109(137) 154(144) 129(195) 147(160) 117(73) 227(113) 165(71) 15 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 215(267) 785(773) 327(425) 115(249) 716(808) 186(241) 161(280) 512(1168) 274(346) 206(159) 806(859) 295(181) 16 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN EADOWS RIVE S M D 26(56) 1157(1238) 57(143) 25(70) 1020(1276) 24(35) 9(19) 11(324) 103(112) 38(28) 21(35) 71(54) 17 ITT OAD L R YLVAN VENUE S A 61(40) 21(31) 153(113) 75(148) 0(27) 26(76) 130(21) 652(631) 72(184) 96(99) 584(832) 33(63) 18 YDIA ANE L L YLVAN VENUE S A 21(16) 0(1) 853(1431) 4(16) 1329(1149) 19 C ENRY VENUE M H A LARIBEL OAD C R 132(181) 878(908) 745(250) 336(792) 1066(1248) 71(255) 104(411) 967(2505) 152(529) 685(548) 2289(1594) 396(243) 20 C ENRY VENUE M H A LARATINA VENUE C A 372(391) 1255(1042) 479(302) 156(333) 801(1451) 314(292) 274(333) 1043(2416) 355(310) 399(157) 2453(1797) 364(542) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 54 Figure 8b – 2017 With Project AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 21 C ENRY VENUE M H A YLVAN VENUE S A 136(324) 1361(1441) 235(383) 109(410) 1331(1522) 146(196) 118(348) 667(1370) 262(324) 390(232) 1474(1012) 331(331) 22 C EYNOLDS VENUE M R A YLVAN VENUE S A 44(26) 4(5) 114(61) 70(73) 2(10) 114(79) 52(161) 577(844) 41(137) 43(80) 785(832) 10(34) 23 ILLBRO OK VENUE M A YLVAN VENUE S A 32(41) 3(0) 217(167) 16(31) 2(5) 10(22) 6(24) 780(698) 113(238) 26(25) 700(911) 10(19) 24 RIVEWAY N. NC-1 D LARATINA VENUE C A 21(81) 653(1458) 25(60) 1323(1315) 1(3) 25 AKDALE OAD O R RIDGEWOOD AY B W 83(142) 1640(1679) 90(133) 230(519) 1186(1575) 12(84) 39(24) 13(16) 76(268) 117(115) 5(48) 281(411) 26 AKDALE OAD O R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 106(317) 1160(1557) 556(425) 188(356) 1276(1560) 473(373) 215(534) 875(1616) 252(543) 341(319) 1771(1410) 235(122) 27 AKDALE OAD O R LARATINA VENUE C A 137(192) 906(874) 638(650) 223(504) 595(994) 205(116) 116(174) 681(1880) 366(574) 144(160) 1661(1267) 176(173) 28 AKDALE OAD O R LARIBEL OAD C R 0(229) 871(735) 748(622) 40(255) 704(1143) 434(475) 388(628) 420(1617) 402(674) 84(67) 1705(1134) 274(0) 29 AKDALE OAD O R RAWFORD OAD C R 591(758) 667(679) 13(11) 51(163) 496(971) 34(6) 22(9) 0(3) 5(8) 122(63) 5(5) 698(734) 30 AKDALE OAD O R LOYD VENUE F A 98(168) 1248(1614) 150(217) 209(566) 1204(1641) 89(66) 132(162) 215(335) 116(139) 422(402) 313(235) 185(124) 31 AKDALE OAD O R ANCEY RIVE L D 14(27) 1518(2138) 84(109) 60(57) 1821(1984) 90(68) 30(254) 7(36) 40(72) 34(37) 4(22) 46(87) 32 AKDALE OAD O R ABLE VENUE M A 178(240) 1562(1684) 116(116) 93(160) 1148(1657) 170(57) 171(128) 48(26) 139(187) 20(35) 7(66) 116(398) 33 AKDALE OAD O R ANOR AK RIVE M O D 35(121) 1362(1895) 2(17) 51(102) 1441(1816) 0(0) 1(2) 7(1) 1(10) 204(72) 19(2) 174(53) 34 AKDALE OAD O R ERYLE VENUE M A 157(519) 1303(1717) 15(65) 150(190) 1578(1823) 7(101) 3(0) 0(1) 0(3) 220(308) 0(20) 388(264) 35 AKDALE OAD O R ORRELL OAD M R STOP 62(207) 597(412) 27(21) 38(77) 406(945) 59(43) 19(20) 48(171) 15(50) 121(85) 190(98) 110(127) 36 AKDALE OAD O R RIVATE RIVEWAY P D 1615(1619) 1053(1636) 84(106) 37 AKDALE OAD O R YLVAN VENUE S A 162(291) 1239(1309) 579(435) 291(222) 947(1422) 289(381) 287(531) 405(953) 303(549) 300(153) 831(773) 238(261) 38 AKDALE OAD O R IVOLI T E 185(326) 1462(1442) 0(0) 948(1555) 198(337) 39 AKDALE OAD O R RIVEWAY RSC-1 W. D 1 118(219) 1446(1361) 0(0) 1080(1717) 218(320) 40 OSELLE VENUE R A RIVEWAY HDR-2 D 1052(909) 0(0) 407(1095) 12(29) 59(35) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 55 Figure 8c – 2017 With Project AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 41 OSELLE VEN UE R A ELHARBOUR RIVE B D 36(193) 639(802) 20(66) 15(48) 622(876) 15(107) 79(32) 5(3) 77(29) 60(52) 32(13) 102(37) 42 OSELLE VEN UE R A RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 104(59) 535(810) 415(282) 177(176) 525(746) 609(278) 136(478) 886(1415) 114(387) 54(64) 1306(1287) 69(201) 43 OSELLE VEN UE R A LARATINA VENUE C A 158(118) 42(107) 592(517) 18(12) 98(89) 107(78) 25(105) 294(446) 107(526) 4(12) 327(393) 45(163) 44 OSELLE VEN UE R A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 261(383) 698(585) 0(0) 206(238) 449(931) 189(241) 169(302) 695(1899) 0(0) 200(189) 1784(1233) 250(308) 45 OSELLE VENUE R A LOYD VENUE F A 53(134) 594(600) 59(89) 187(256) 377(732) 82(64) 90(140) 179(246) 73(97) 178(183) 170(296) 150(105) 46 OSELLE VENUE R A ILLGLEN VENUE H A 18(29) 835(807) 86(67) 0(71) 330(1040) 75(24) 77(38) 0(10) 159(66) 56(39) 6(2) 72(43) 47 OSELLE VENUE R A ODIAK RIVE K D 30(71) 770(812) 92(41) 12(83) 508(973) 53(86) 70(45) 1(5) 64(34) 78(51) 3(2) 64(43) 48 OSELLE VENUE R A ERYLE VENUE M A 67(278) 524(914) 69(159) 72(69) 793(881) 65(61) 53(59) 112(125) 190(95) 101(48) 131(114) 323(219) 49 OSELLE VENUE R A RIVEWAY NC-1 E. D 1136(892) 0(1) 294(1081) 24(64) 21(123) 50 OSELLE VENUE R A LAINVIEW OAD P R 0(19) 275(295) 0(27) 6(54) 395(379) 0(0) 7(20) 0(23) 30(36) 75(19) 51 OSELLE VENUE R A YLVAN VENUE S A 17(47) 723(690) 228(141) 280(417) 314(723) 44(86) 28(0) 600(481) 55(429) 342(394) 544(723) 42(0) 52 OSELLE VENUE R A IVOLI T C 90(118) 1819(1630) 78(106) 173(338) 790(2176) 56(101) 127(85) 4(11) 95(52) 274(256) 15(11) 96(96) 53 OSELLE VENUE R A IVOLI T D 0(0) 1898(1852) 0(0) 1038(2305) 110(73) 0(0) 44(28) 54 RIVEWAY RSC-1 D 1 LARATINA VENUE C A 83(239) 839(2217) 202(359) 1982(1600) 0(0) 55 RIVEWAY RSC-1 D 2 LARATINA VENUE C A 58(139) 270(414) 753(2197) 169(259) 1712(1187) 268(366) 56 RIVEWAY RSC-1 D 3 LARATINA C 84(163) 674(2054) 137(282) 1980(1552) 0(0) 57 ERMINAL VENUE T A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 3(2) 83(90) 57(68) 6(34) 92(81) 190(185) 52(183) 1092(2115) 78(57) 21(20) 1765(1567) 1(5) 58 IVOLI OAD T R A LARATINA VENUE C A 73(44) 12(21) 226(117) 0(0) 4(39) 298(219) 99(329) 604(1633) 55(255) 20(60) 1456(1216) 21(88) 59 IVOLI OAD T R B LARATINA VENUE C A 46(14) 179(111) 632(1503) 45(173) 1318(1252) 5(62) 60 OOD ORRELL RIVE W S D YLVAN VENUE S A 34(11) 5(5) 97(102) 36(114) 2(18) 31(27) 16(36) 756(1260) 71(95) 49(96) 1187(1001) 9(51) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 56 Year 2017 Intersection Levels of Service Two scenarios were developed for the year 2017 conditions. These include: year 2017 without the project and year 2017 with the project. Service levels were calculated for the study intersections using the 2017 baseline and project traffic volumes and the planned and project roadway improvements. Table 14 presents the LOS results; the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in the technical appendix. Delay increases due to the project and the impacts associated with the project are also presented in Table 14. Table 14 shows the conditions before and after the project traffic is added. 2017 Baseline Conditions The following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2017 baseline conditions during either the AM or PM peak hours. Signalized Intersections Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Floyd Avenue Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Mc Henry Avenue at Claribel Road Mc Henry Avenue at Claratina Avenue Mc Henry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Claribel Avenue Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Stop Controlled Intersections Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Coffee Road at Claribel Road Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue Mc Reynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 57 Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout Intersections Coffee Road and Claratina Avenue 2017 Project Conditions The following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2017 project conditions during either the AM or PM peak hours. Signalized Intersections Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Future Floyd Avenue Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Stop Controlled Intersections Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Oakdale Road at Tivoli E Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Roundabout Intersections Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 58 Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Stop Control Intersections That Meet Delay or Peak Hour Warrant The following locations experience sub-standard, that is, LOS E or F conditions during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Further, each intersection meets either the delay, peak hour volume or both signal warrants under with-project conditions. Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Claus Road at Santa Fe Road Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Oakdale Road RSC-1 W. Driveway 1 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Roselle Avenue at NC-1 E. Driveway RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Year 2017 Roadway Segment Levels of Service Roadway segment V/C ratios were calculated based on the existing volumes and segment capacities presented in Table 4. These capacities are inherently conservative as they are based on the number of lanes on the mainline segments and do not necessarily consider additional turn lanes (and their added capacity) at the approaches to intersections. The volume to capacity ratios and corresponding LOS values are shown in Table 15. 2017 Baseline Conditions The following roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2017 baseline conditions. Refer to Table 15 for details regarding impacts along specific roadway segments. Sylvan Avenue – Roselle Avenue to Oakdale Road Oakdale Road – Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue Claratina Avenue – McHenry to Oakdale Avenue 2017 Project Conditions Portions of the following roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2017 project conditions. Refer to Table 15 for details regarding impacts along specific roadway segments. Claratina Avenue – McHenry Road to Roselle Avenue Oakdale Road – Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way Roselle Avenue – Tivoli Road C to Tivoli D Sylvan Avenue – Wood Sorrell Road to Oakdale Road ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 59 Table 14 - Comparison of 2017 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Levels of Service 2017 Baseline No Project 2017 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Impact Y/N? 1 Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 145.0 (1007.0) F(F) 56.5 (1681.1) F(F) Roundabout 3.8 A 4.0 A N 2 Boyce Lane at Sylvan Avenue Signal 26.9 C 9.7 A Signal 29.0 C 9.8 A N 3 Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 160.5 F 220.6 F Signal 164.7 F 237.7 F Y 4 Claus Road at Claribel Road Signal 165.6 F 245.1 F Signal 181.9 F 267.3 F Y 5 Claus Road at Future Floyd Avenue Signal 88.6 F 169.9 F Signal 207.9 F 274.1 F Y 6 Claus Road at Milnes Road Unsignalized 2131.0 (>9999) F(F) 2906.4 (>9999) F(F) Unsignalized 3368.2 (>9999) F(F) 8253.1 (>9999) F(F) Y 7 Claus Road at Plainview Road Unsignalized 627.5 (>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized 535.4 (>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) 8 Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) 9 Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 238.2 F 407.7 F Signal 323.4 F 504.7 F Y 10 Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Roundabout 208.0 F 206.2 F Roundabout 1552.5 F 436.2 F Y 11 Coffee Road at Claribel Road All-way STOP 1850.9 F 2187.3 F All-way STOP 2018.0 F 2461.6 F 12 Coffee Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 28.1 C 34.2 C Signal 29.4 C 36.1 D N 13 Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Signal 118.4 F 59.4 E Signal 115.4 F 62.6 E 14 Coffee Road at Rumble Road Signal 29.9 C 30.4 C Signal 29.4 C 30.4 C N 15 Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 42.2 D 83.4 F Signal 43.5 D 88.5 F Y 16 Coffee Road at Sylvan Meadows Drive Signal 12.3 B 25.3 C Signal 13.3 B 26.7 C N 17 Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 3.3 A 3.3 A Roundabout 3.1 A 3.6 A N 18 Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 0.6 ( 43.2) A(E) 1.7 (183.8) A(F) Unsignalized 0.1 ( 14.3) A(B) 0.1 ( 13.0) A(B) N 19 McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road Signal 500.4 F 486.4 F Signal 528.4 F 500.5 F Y 20 McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue Signal 237.1 F 310.1 F Signal 299.4 F 348.1 F Y 21 McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Signal 74.8 E 143.6 F Signal 85.9 F 163.6 F Y 22 McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 53.3 (655.0) F(F) 40.0 (1220.5) E(F) Roundabout 3.0 A 3.3 A N 23 Millbrook Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 2.7 A 2.8 A Roundabout 3.0 A 3.1 A N 24 N. NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 1.7 A 4.6 A N 25 Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Unsignalized 142.8 (2635.9) F(F) 277.4(3497.5) F(F) Signal 34.1 C 118.2 F Y 26 Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 62.1 E 86.2 F Signal 76.9 E 90.3 F Y 27 Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Signal 31.9 C 38.8 D N 28 Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Signal 389.9 F 468.1 F Signal 387.9 F 389.2 F 29 Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Signal 45.9 D 95.3 F Signal 34.2 C 63.6 E 30 Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 72.7 E 126.3 F Signal 41.0 D 100.4 F 31 Oakdale Road at Lancey Drive Signal 8.8 A 16.0 B Signal 8.4 A 20.8 C N 32 Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Signal 122.8 F 134.0 F Signal 11.2 B 33.3 C N 33 Oakdale Road at Manor Oak Drive Signal 15.2 B 8.6 A Signal 14.4 B 7.5 A N 34 Oakdale Road at Merle Avenue Signal 16.8 B 19.6 B Signal 16.2 B 19.9 B N 35 Oakdale Road at Morrill Road All-way STOP 80.2 F 179.0 F All-way STOP 89.1 F 284.1 F Y 36 Oakdale Road at Private Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0 ( 0.0) A(A) 0.0 ( 0.0) A(A) N ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 60 2017 Baseline No Project 2017 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Impact Y/N? 37 Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 44.7 D 74.6 E Signal 52.7 D 100.6 F Y 38 Oakdale Road at Tivoli E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0(0.0) A(A) 0.0(0.0) A(A) N 39 Oakdale Road RSC-1 W. Driveway 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0(0.0) A(A) 0.0(0.0) A(A) N 40 Roselle Avenue and MHDR-2 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.4 ( 9.8) A(A) 0.2 ( 13.2) A(B) N 41 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Unsignalized 41.2 (239.0) E(F) 23.7 (289.3) C(F) Unsignalized 47.3 (269.7) E(F) 27.7 (399.2) D(F) 42 Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 75.6 E 65.2 E Signal 67.9 E 63.5 E 43 Roselle Avenue at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 2.3 A 2.9 A N 44 Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 1187.6 F 1521.8 F All-way STOP 1281.8 F 1513.3 F Y 45 Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue Roundabout 2.4 A 3.0 A Roundabout 2.5 A 3.2 A N 46 Roselle Avenue at Hillglen Avenue Roundabout 3.0 A 2.9 A Roundabout 3.0 A 3.1 A N 47 Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive Roundabout 2.7 A 2.8 A Roundabout 2.8 A 3.1 A N 48 Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue Signal 46.3 D 38.7 D Signal 48.2 D 40.1 D N 49 Roselle Avenue at NC-1 E. Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.1 ( 9.1) A(A) 0.8 ( 14.0) A(B) N 50 Roselle Avenue at Plainview Road Unsignalized 2.9 ( 16.8) A(C) 6.3 ( 23.5) A(C) Unsignalized 2.4 ( 16.3) A(C) 2.4 ( 14.9) A(B) N 51 Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 3.2 A 4.5 A Roundabout 3.8 A 5.2 A N 52 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 141.5 F 72.4 F Y 53 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 6.1 A 16.9 C N 54 RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 ( 10.6) A(B) 1.7 ( 31.9) A(D) N 55 RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 19.0 B 32.1 C N 56 RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 ( 10.1) A(B) 0.8 ( 20.3) A(C) N 57 Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 785.9 F 1153.5 F All-way STOP 758.1 F 1182.4 F 58 Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 33.1 C 31.5 C N 59 Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 15.3 B 8.9 A N 60 Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 33.4 (735.3) D(F) 37.5 (1219.8) E(F) Roundabout 2.8 A 3.5 A N Note: n/a = not applicable * =>9999 indicates overflow delay. The delay calculations for the HCM 2000 methodology are incapable of quantifying delay. Estimated delay would exceed 9999 seconds. = Project traffic does not cause critical delay to increase by more than five seconds at signalized intersections or 30 seconds on minor approaches at unsignalized intersections. = Project traffic contributes more than 10 vehicles per lane at unsignalized intersection operating at LOS F with incremental delay less than 30 seconds. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 61 Table 15 - Comparison of 2017 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Roadway 2017 Baseline 2017 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS AM PM Impact Y/N? Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road EB 1 rural road 1.201 F 3.151 F 1 rural road 1.746 F 3.489 F 0.544 0.338 Y McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road WB 1 rural road 3.179 F 2.422 F 1 rural road 3.573 F 2.773 F 0.394 0.351 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road EB 1 rural road 0.622 B 2.129 F 1 rural road 1.290 F 2.924 F 0.668 0.796 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road WB 1 rural road 2.334 F 1.712 F 1 rural road 3.032 F 2.297 F 0.698 0.584 Y Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.463 A 1.145 F n/a n/a Y Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 B 0.711 A n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway # 1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.410 A 1.092 F n/a n/a Y RSC-1 Driveway #1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.881 D 0.711 C n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.360 A 1.038 F n/a n/a Y RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 D 0.690 B n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.337 A 0.985 E n/a n/a Y RSC-1 driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 B 0.771 A n/a n/a N Tivoli Road A to Tivoli Road B EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.301 A 0.745 C n/a n/a N Tivoli Road A to Tivoli Road B WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.665 B 0.606 B n/a n/a N Tivoli Road B to Roselle Avenue EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 unsignalized arterial 0.213 A 0.539 A n/a n/a N Tivoli Road B to Roselle Avenue WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 signalized arterial 0.684 B 0.659 B n/a n/a N Roselle Avenue Claratina Avenue to Tivoli Road C NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.271 A 0.289 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.396 A 0.371 A 0.125 0.083 N Claratina Avenue to Tivoli Road C SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.154 A 0.378 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.125 A 0.389 A -0.029 0.012 N Tivoli Road C to Tivoli Road D NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.271 A 0.289 A 2 unsignalized arterial 1.011 F 1.031 F 0.740 0.742 Y Tivoli Road C to Tivoli Road D SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.154 A 0.378 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.553 A 1.243 F 0.399 0.866 Y Tivoli Road D to Sylvan Avenue NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.335 A 0.367 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.547 A 0.542 A 0.212 0.175 N Tivoli Road D to Sylvan Avenue SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.243 A 0.441 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.319 A 0.613 B 0.077 0.172 N Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.352 A 0.633 B 2 unsignalized arterial 0.342 A 0.455 A -0.010 -0.178 N Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.562 A 0.533 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.408 A 0.475 A -0.154 -0.058 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.353 A 0.702 C 2 unsignalized arterial 0.335 A 0.571 A -0.018 -0.131 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.629 B 0.545 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.507 A 0.486 A -0.122 -0.059 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.441 A 0.755 C 2 unsignalized arterial 0.467 A 0.691 B 0.027 -0.064 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.690 B 0.567 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.614 B 0.583 A -0.076 0.016 N Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane EB 1 unsignalized arterial 0.812 D 1.597 F 1 unsignalized arterial 0.843 D 1.391 F 0.031 -0.206 N Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane WB 1 unsignalized arterial 1.453 F 1.186 F 1 unsignalized arterial 1.315 F 1.130 F -0.138 -0.056 N Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road EB 1 signalized arterial 1.095 F 2.223 F 1 signalized arterial 1.144 F 1.955 F 0.049 -0.268 N Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road WB 2 signalized arterial 0.997 E 0.825 D 2 signalized arterial 0.913 E 0.791 C -0.084 -0.034 N ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 62 2017 Baseline 2017 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS AM PM Impact Y/N? Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way NB 1 signalized arterial 2.384 F 2.259 F 3 signalized arterial 0.812 D 0.886 D -1.572 -1.373 N Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way SB 3 signalized arterial 0.546 A 0.866 D 3 signalized arterial 0.679 B 0.900 E 0.132 0.034 Y Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E NB 1 signalized arterial 2.340 F 1.948 F 3 signalized arterial 0.798 C 0.808 D -1.542 -1.140 N Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E SB 3 signalized arterial 0.451 A 0.769 C 3 signalized arterial 0.550 A 0.803 D 0.099 0.034 N Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue NB 1 signalized arterial 2.140 F 1.881 F 3 signalized arterial 0.738 C 0.791 C -1.402 -1.091 N Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue SB 3 signalized arterial 0.389 A 0.773 C 3 signalized arterial 0.506 A 0.856 D 0.117 0.083 N Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue NB 1 signalized arterial 2.461 F 2.225 F 3 signalized arterial 0.779 C 0.821 D -1.682 -1.404 N Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue SB 3 signalized arterial 0.520 A 0.873 D 3 signalized arterial 0.627 B 0.833 D 0.108 -0.040 N n/a = not applicable does not exist in baseline. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 63 CHAPTER 6 - YEAR 2025 (CUMULATIVE) CONDITIONS Year 2025 conditions represent near-term conditions with planned and financed transportation system improvements, traffic volume increases due to expected local development plus regional growth, and portions of the project to be conducted by 2025. The Year 2025 full build out of the project includes total of 3,145 residential units, 179,032 square feet of neighborhood and standard commercial use, 900,000 square feet of regional commercial use, 31,363 square feet of office, a 850 student elementary school and 19 acres of park. LOS analysis results for the key intersections and roadway segments were used as the basis for determining near-term (2025) project impacts as discussed in Chapter 7. Year 2025 Baseline Transportation System Improvements The City’s 2025 (cumulative) traffic model assumes the construction of all of the proposed roadways found in the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan. However, the current CIP includes a list of roadway and intersection improvements, which were used for the 2017 year analyses. As in the 2017 scenario southbound Oakdale Road between Claratina Avenue and Sylvan Avenue is assumed to be constructed to 3 lanes as a signalized arterial as would be funded by the land development on the west side of that road. These same improvements were assumed to be in place for the baseline and baseline plus project year 2025 scenarios. Figures 9a, 9b and 9c show the 2025 AM and PM peak hour traffic without the project. The assumed geometry at each intersection is also shown. Year 2025 Project Related Transportation Improvements Project related transportation improvements should be complete by 2017 impact mitigation measures notwithstanding. Year 2025 Project Traffic The amount of traffic associated with the project was estimated using the process, which is described in Chapter 2. Trip Generation The amount of traffic generated by the proposed Tivoli Specific Plan was estimated from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition) for the variety of uses listed below. The project will generate about 91,000 daily and 5,100 AM and 8,400 PM peak hour trips. The details of the trip generation are shown in Table 16. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 64 Table 16 - Year 2025 Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Acronym Amount Units ITE Code Daily In Out Total In Out Total VLDR 30 DU1 210 287 5 17 23 20 10 30 LDR 1,322 DU1 210 12,652 252 739 995 848 489 1,335 MDR 833 DU1 231 7,322 142 417 558 376 275 650 MHDR 960 DU1 220 6,451 96 394 489 384 211 595 NC 104,544 SqFt2 820 4,489 66 42 108 188 204 392 C 74,488 SqFt2 820 3,198 47 30 77 134 145 279 RSC-1 600,000 SqFt2 Ave. 36,520 870 708 1,581 1,558 1,608 3,168 RSC-2 300,000 SqFt2 Ave. 18,260 435 356 791 780 804 1,584 PO 31,363 SqFt2 715 363 50 6 56 8 46 54 Elem. Sch. 850 Enrl3 520 1,097 196 162 357 111 128 238 Parks/Public Infrastructure 19 Acres 411 380 38 38 76 38 38 76 TOTAL 91,019 2,197 2,909 5,111 4,445 3,958 8,401 1 DU refers to total number of Dwelling Units 2 SqFt refers to Gross Square Footage, and trip generation rates are calculated per 1,000 square feet. 3 Enrl refers to number of students Figures 10a, 10b and 10c show the 2025 AM and PM peak hour traffic with the project. The assumed geometry at each intersection is also shown. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 65 Figure 9a – 2025 Baseline AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 1 RIA AY A W YLVAN VENUE S A 46(30) 0(0) 358(78) 0(0) 0(2) 0(0) 0(0) 747(1743) 330(125) 0(1) 1310(1417) 15(31) 2 OYCE ANE B L YLVAN VENUE S A 22(15) 154(7) 63(88) 102(49) 27(15) 54(56) 205(61) 715(1938) 69(172) 223(28) 1866(1455) 16(18) 3 LAUS OAD C R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 497(615) 2750(2678) 710(667) 238(488) 2038(2816) 426(587) 424(474) 535(814) 797(953) 280(344) 793(944) 652(620) 4 LAUS OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R 64(180) 1635(1575) 1091(884) 11(31) 1330(1438) 1116(916) 551(888) 218(464) 755(1548) 27(33) 483(367) 128(230) 5 LAUS OAD C R UTURE LOYD VENUE F F A 0(0) 3005(2662) 248(647) 0(0) 2005(3186) 199(546) 470(346) 0(0) 608(490) 198(414) 64(336) 96(208) 6 LAUS OAD C R ILNES OAD M R 65(122) 3634(3352) 64(147) 2591(4013) 85(67) 128(50) 7 LAUS OAD C R LAINVIEW OAD P R 10(4) 2664(2590) 217(64) 5(0) 2059(2919) 136(284) 125(33) 0(0) 160(328) 10(13) 8 LAUS OAD C R ANTA E VENUE S F A 0(45) 2865(2606) 211(209) 9(24) 2143(3156) 13(13) 0(21) 16(148) 149(137) 15(52) 58(206) 12(40) 9 LAUS OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 2652(2478 ) 1 032(929) 2145(3066) 149(316) 276(266) 536(1004) 10 OFFEE OAD C R LARATINA VENUE C A 199(396) 948(891) 945(618) 131(415) 648(808) 237(199) 270(520) 603(2382) 309(974) 72(114) 3010(1923) 420(532) 11 OFFEE OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 485(667) 548(482) 656(322) 18(36) 531(699) 207(226) 111(237) 1914(3628) 276(1022) 36(54) 4147(3130) 298(229) 12 OFFEE OAD C R LOYD VENUE F A 64(154) 1127(1290) 84(140) 100(194) 1201(1242) 175(157) 250(168) 149(385) 69(81) 128(134) 227(249) 176(120) 13 OFFEE OAD C R ABLE VENUE M A 55(198) 1521(1541) 15(14) 314(359) 997(1681) 1(0) 3(5) 1(7) 15(10) 349(210) 12(10) 291(124) 14 OFFEE OAD C R UMBLE OAD R R 142(128) 1374(1407) 91(152) 49(94) 1096(1545) 111(142) 162(148) 130(201) 148(165) 131(77) 229(117) 182(73) 15 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 144(199) 992(805) 329(437) 147(297) 716(972) 208(249) 203(326) 516(1200) 276(356) 257(180) 812(882) 244(152) 16 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN EADOWS RIVE S M D 39(51) 1498(1474) 44(145) 24(33) 1163(1672) 24(29) 9(19) 11(321) 104(113) 43(28) 18(23) 91(91) 17 ITT OAD L R YLVAN VENUE S A 76(46) 23(33) 184(125) 131(201) 4(16) 149(285) 297(210) 430(552) 80(178) 182(210) 449(593) 28(61) 18 YDIA ANE L L YLVAN VENUE S A 5(15) 41(23) 10(43) 897(1960) 7(8) 1759(1511) 19 C ENRY VENUE M H A LARIBEL OAD C R 351(148) 1266(997) 574(304) 406(812) 1302(1544) 169(228) 123(462) 1553(3937) 209(575) 782(643) 3956(2674) 305(367) 20 C ENRY VENUE M H A LARATINA VENUE C A 310(710) 2062(1429) 687(595) 138(252) 1047(2144) 255(460) 391(523) 722(3015) 574(525) 104(202) 3450(1825) 597(653) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 66 Figure 9b – 2025 Baseline AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 21 C ENRY VENUE M H A YLVAN VENUE S A 108(360) 1813(1688) 242(385) 115(589) 1534(1856) 219(249) 120(398) 606(1434) 243(421) 485(299) 1723(958) 274(328) 22 C EYNOLDS VENUE M R A YLVAN VENUE S A 55(32) 1(0) 119(77) 2(0) 1(2) 4(6) 2(6) 867(1629) 39(142) 1(2) 1463(1373) 10(52) 23 ILLBROOK VENUE M A YLVAN VENUE S A 54(60) 8(4) 256(202) 18(47) 1(6) 27(53) 47(39) 739(828) 117(324) 44(28) 719(921) 8(34) 24 25 AKDALE OAD O R RIDGEWOOD AY B W 2540(2087) 92(291) 1426(2439) 10(120) 122(26) 89(391) 26 AKDALE OAD O R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 216(469) 1251(1463) 633(490) 273(559) 1218(1639) 494(408) 204(576) 1174(2176) 278(625) 478(463) 2173(1923) 393(256) 27 AKDALE OAD O R LARATINA VENUE C A 1070(974) 1720(1416) 903(1302) 1368(945) 360(1441) 573(1746) 28 AKDALE OAD O R LARIBEL OAD C R 140(374) 1091(1285) 679(673) 50(144) 1048(1715) 792(569) 621(889) 1342(2956) 447(474) 53(67) 2999(2161) 272(192) 29 AKDALE OAD O R RAWFORD OAD C R 895(1365) 846(853) 16(13) 74(189) 691(1099) 42(8) 28(11) 0(4) 6(10) 142(88) 6(6) 1170(1307) 30 AKDALE OAD O R LOYD VENUE F A 88(104) 1373(1669) 154(212) 239(720) 1102(1821) 75(56) 190(133) 213(336) 120(147) 568(548) 345(269) 193(126) 31 AKDALE OAD O R ANCEY RIVE L D 7(17) 1721(2300) 90(104) 73(55) 1824(2322) 57(62) 33(190) 7(36) 42(72) 32(41) 4(23) 46(86) 32 AKDALE OAD O R ABLE VENUE M A 0(6) 2558(2254) 114(115) 2(0) 1295(xxxx) 181(118) 156(112) 159(172) 4(6) 1(5) 0(4) 33 AKDALE OAD O R ANOR AK RIVE M O D 41(125) 1515(1902) 3(17) 53(134) 1351(1997) 0(0) 1(2) 7(1) 1(10) 207(73) 19(2) 178(55) 34 AKDALE OAD O R ERYLE VENUE M A 169(542) 1424(1717) 15(69) 154(189) 1527(2105) 7(102) 3(0) 0(1) 0(3) 231(311) 0(20) 420(303) 35 AKDALE OAD O R ORRELL OAD M R STOP 76(287) 691(451) 34(31) 42(78) 457(997) 66(45) 21(20) 52(154) 24(100) 130(88) 178(98) 249(165) 36 AKDALE OAD O R RIVATE RIVEWAY P D 2681(2228) 0(0) 1355(2876) 121(173) 109(162) 37 AKDALE OAD O R YLVAN VENUE S A 119(247) 1593(1452) 655(401) 385(766) 890(1693) 175(248) 199(344) 401(996) 285(645) 708(477) 896(795) 191(265) 38 39 40 No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 67 Figure 9c – 2025 Baseline AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 41 OSELLE VENUE R A ELHARBOUR RIVE B D 40(192) 825(970) 21(82) 28(61) 734(1111) 18(91) 118(48) 5(1) 113(58) 62(46) 32(16) 101(38) 42 OSELLE VENUE R A RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 153(54) 653(928) 541(386) 302(253) 451(874) 738(418) 231(667) 1303(1933) 135(596) 87(110) 1769(1849) 66(248) 43 44 OSELLE VENUE R A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 243(320) 788(649) 550(137) 318(430) 400(1192) 209(223) 238(376) 1246(2705) 55(401) 357(288) 2557(2050) 199(255) 45 OSELLE VENUE R A LOYD VENUE F A 74(165) 702(634) 81(114) 216(386) 417(785) 75(110) 113(175) 245(314) 109(126) 201(220) 202(426) 169(148) 46 OSELLE VENUE R A ILLGLEN VENUE H A 36(91) 1048(791) 89(80) 24(93) 314(1257) 75(31) 71(45) 4(14) 157(74) 109(56) 11(13) 133(64) 47 OSELLE VENUE R A ODIAK RIVE K D 40(116) 946(857) 87(57) 33(132) 537(1153) 52(98) 82(49) 2(12) 68(51) 115(68) 5(9) 100(79) 48 OSELLE VENUE R A ERYLE VENUE M A 68(389) 734(1150) 66(164) 66(59) 923(1161) 67(59) 53(51) 115(128) 202(95) 96(48) 147(120) 357(282) 49 50 OSELLE VENUE R A LAINVIEW OAD P R 4(6) 300(304) 43(111) 6(84) 431(390) 0(0) 0(0) 69(138) 4(113) 33(54) 59(95) 26(4) 51 OSELLE VENUE R A YLVAN VENUE S A 81(89) 718(588) 430(208) 119(257) 300(770) 178(227) 139(246) 702(843) 80(571) 82(127) 868(998) 50(56) 52 53 54 55 56 57 ERMINAL VENUE T A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 3(3) 115(111) 204(193) 6(16) 120(90) 195(206) 57(198) 1489(2940) 189(303) 9(11) 2661(2202) 6(7) 58 59 60 OOD ORRELL RIVE W S D YLVAN VENUE S A 39(8) 0(0) 87(93) 2(0) 0(0) 5(0) 5(0) 859(1835) 76(140) 2(2) 1668(1451) 9(21) No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist No Intersection or Does Not Exist ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 68 Figure 10a – 2025 With Project AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 1 RIA AY A W YLVAN VENUE S A 39(34) 22(11) 345(101) 30(35) 8(24) 126(163) 123(174) 688(1443) 319(123) 10(44) 1046(1262) 26(26) 2 OYCE ANE B L YLVAN VENUE S A 22(16) 154(7) 60(79) 104(51) 26(16) 54(52) 204(56) 917(2201) 71(159) 244(37) 2027(1753) 17(20) 3 LAUS OAD C R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 488(575) 2859(2822) 698(656) 272(508) 2232(2971) 398(587) 391(452) 540(859) 732(886) 289(390) 801(959) 620(620) 4 LAUS OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R 70(191) 1579(1474) 1075(888) 14(35) 1270(1389) 1172(992) 644(1037) 236(496) 772(1632) 29(30) 521(405) 108(226) 5 LAUS OAD C R UTURE LOYD VENUE F F A 192(166) 3135(2778) 235(683) 486(320) 2238(3321) 204(549) 469(338) 378(200) 587(464) 186(424) 68(326) 98(202) 6 LAUS OAD C R ILNES OAD M R 65(122) 3728(3552) 64(147) 2813(4227) 85(67) 128(50) 7 LAUS OAD C R LAINVIEW OAD P R 10(4) 2597(2518) 228(57) 5(0) 2013(2957) 119(276) 126(18) 0(0) 152(327) 10(13) 8 LAUS OAD C R ANTA E VENUE S F A 0(45) 2834(2511) 211(209) 9(24) 2077(3216) 13(13) 0(21) 16(148) 149(137) 15(52) 58(206) 12(40) 9 LAUS OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 2618(2422 ) 1 160(1185) 2080(3095) 148(347) 279(226) 825(1189) 10 OFFEE OAD C R LARATINA VENUE C A 266(442) 919(973) 834(564) 180(512) 667(898) 180(223) 313(456) 1088(2955) 293(875) 90(160) 3552(2320) 488(615) 11 OFFEE OAD C R LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 521(707) 542(454) 645(342) 33(121) 516(642) 178(123) 60(212) 1905(3909) 241(1000) 103(78) 4309(3242) 314(402) 12 OFFEE OAD C R LOYD VENUE F A 67(179) 1151(1331) 81(127) 99(184) 1229(1253) 187(187) 275(208) 155(390) 54(63) 128(123) 229(257) 185(144) 13 OFFEE OAD C R ABLE VENUE M A 62(199) 1500(1611) 15(14) 316(358) 1041(1708) 1(0) 3(5) 1(7) 15(10) 354(183) 12(10) 295(122) 14 OFFEE OAD C R UMBLE OAD R R 123(155) 1456(1469) 91(152) 46(76) 1143(1595) 111(142) 162(148) 130(201) 148(165) 127(75) 229(117) 167(73) 15 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN VENUE S A 216(272) 967(806) 329(437) 127(257) 722(971) 208(249) 203(326) 516(1200) 276(356) 262(189) 812(882) 297(185) 16 OFFEE OAD C R YLVAN EADOWS RIVE S M D 26(61) 1452(1524) 57(145) 25(70) 1197(1624) 24(35) 9(19) 11(328) 104(114) 42(28) 21(35) 95(78) 17 ITT OAD L R YLVAN VENUE S A 69(44) 24(34) 172(125) 123(226) 0(29) 83(185) 246(101) 696(684) 80(201) 165(181) 638(900) 36(69) 18 YDIA ANE L L YLVAN VENUE S A 21(14) 0(1) 934(1757) 4(15) 1617(1440) 19 C ENR Y VENUE M H A LARIBEL OAD C R 261(218) 1130(956) 934(312) 466(995) 1279(1460) 109(301) 105(543) 1488(3917) 196(717) 921(760) 3735(2574) 504(373) 20 C ENR Y VENUE M H A LARATINA VENUE C A 419(629) 1944(1524) 739(524) 163(381) 1119(2146) 376(434) 390(483) 1078(3271) 573(498) 411(193) 3525(2121) 570(682) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 69 Figure 10b – 2025 With Project AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 21 C ENRY VENUE M H A YLVAN VENUE S A 137(363) 1843(1732) 248(395) 112(540) 1592(1922) 198(239) 119(423) 672(1554) 264(374) 540(284) 1760(1046) 349(364) 22 C EYNOLDS VENUE M R A YLVAN VENUE S A 55(35) 4(5) 114(78) 70(73) 2(10) 114(80) 52(162) 779(1188) 41(166) 43(80) 1114(1181) 10(50) 23 ILLBRO OK VENUE M A YLVAN VENUE S A 48(60) 6(0) 295(233) 23(50) 2(7) 21(43) 25(40) 955(872) 140(338) 44(36) 827(1125) 11(29) 24 RIVEWAY N. NC-1 D LARATINA VENUE C A 21(81) 653(1458) 25(60) 1323(1315) 1(3) 25 AKDALE OAD O R RIDGEWOOD AY B W 83(142) 2499(2323) 94(223) 230(519) 1608(2359) 12(129) 87(32) 13(16) 80(388) 117(115) 5(48) 281(411) 26 AKDALE OAD O R RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 170(429) 1396(1639) 634(472) 259(492) 1386(1772) 488(417) 228(573) 1151(2146) 261(623) 460(443) 2211(1956) 327(197) 27 AKDALE OAD O R LARATINA VENUE C A 137(192) 1334(1264) 1326(1216) 223(504) 956(1515) 752(494) 260(750) 681(1880) 595(1272) 144(160) 1661(1267) 176(173) 28 AKDALE OAD O R LARIBEL OAD C R 0(337) 1150(1069) 990(867) 50(295) 914(1661) 713(680) 610(935) 883(2672) 557(847) 97(77) 2768(1860) 331(0) 29 AKDALE OAD O R RAWFORD OAD C R 895(1203) 893(846) 16(13) 71(204) 634(1270) 42(8) 28(11) 0(4) 6(10) 151(80) 6(6) 1012(1188) 30 AKDALE OAD O R LOYD VENUE F A 104(168) 1490(1865) 161(218) 246(751) 1314(1929) 95(78) 176(163) 231(337) 125(140) 554(559) 338(256) 199(125) 31 AKDALE OAD O R ANCEY RIVE L D 15(27) 1867(2446) 93(110) 77(59) 1987(2414) 100(68) 30(276) 7(36) 40(72) 34(39) 4(22) 46(87) 32 AKDALE OAD O R ABLE VENUE M A 178(240) 2432(2386) 117(117) 93(160) 1455(2583) 172(91) 173(129) 48(26) 146(188) 20(35) 7(66) 116(398) 33 AKDALE OAD O R ANOR AK RIVE M O D 38(123) 1660(2141) 3(17) 52(104) 1569(2117) 0(0) 1(2) 7(1) 1(10) 206(73) 19(2) 176(54) 34 AKDALE OAD O R ERYLE VENUE M A 162(525) 1575(1963) 15(69) 155(192) 1736(2215) 7(102) 3(0) 0(1) 0(3) 227(312) 0(20) 420(296) 35 AKDALE OAD O R ORRELL OAD M R STOP 84(291) 734(432) 39(30) 42(81) 456(1183) 66(45) 21(21) 54(178) 23(90) 135(89) 209(102) 190(176) 36 AKDALE OAD O R RIVATE RIVEWAY P D 2687(2510) 0(0) 1595(2786) 132(175) 37 AKDALE OAD O R YLVAN VENUE S A 172(316) 1696(1665) 648(443) 354(442) 1073(1897) 321(445) 340(614) 416(1050) 311(599) 502(293) 921(884) 246(309) 38 AKDALE OAD O R IVOLI T E 185(326) 2532(2382) 0(0) 1531(2714) 198(337) 39 AKDALE OAD O R RIVEWAY RSC-1 W. D 1 118(219) 2551(2296) 0(0) 1643(2917) 218(320) 40 OSELLE VENUE R A RIVEWAY HDR-2 D 1414(1255) 0(0) 612(1566) 12(29) 59(35) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 70 Figure 10c – 2025 With Project AM(PM) Peak Hour Intersection Turning Movements STOP = four-way stop = signalized intersection 41 OSELLE VENUE R A EL ARBOUR RIVE B H D 36(197) 863(1031) 20(76) 15(50) 764(1160) 16(127) 123(48) 5(3) 106(47) 61(53) 32(13) 103(38) 42 OSELLE VENUE R A RIGGSMORE VENUE B A 151(73) 731(1013) 545(388) 255(232) 539(977) 725(378) 200(612) 1260(1891) 126(555) 80(92) 1732(1841) 78(279) 43 OSELLE VENUE R A LARATINA VENUE C A 158(118) 42(107) 592(517) 18(12) 98(89) 107(78) 25(105) 294(446) 107(526) 4(12) 327(393) 45(163) 44 OSELLE VENUE R A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 350(487) 960(768) 166(0) 298(384) 507(1320) 241(313) 236(424) 1118(2853) 0(0) 315(277) 2668(1895) 311(392) 45 OSELLE VENUE R A LOYD VENUE F A 74(172) 767(736) 75(101) 235(374) 439(904) 89(90) 115(174) 244(313) 96(103) 211(257) 188(424) 175(148) 46 OSELLE VENUE R A ILLGLEN VENUE H A 32(65) 1142(981) 86(77) 5(108) 366(1358) 75(26) 77(40) 2(16) 160(70) 100(61) 10(7) 125(69) 47 OSELLE VENUE R A ODIAK RIVE K D 46(117) 1011(995) 92(55) 25(136) 592(1242) 53(106) 93(62) 2(10) 64(52) 124(78) 5(6) 104(75) 48 OSELLE VENUE R A ERYLE VENUE M A 73(365) 757(1190) 77(160) 74(69) 951(1189) 67(61) 55(59) 116(126) 198(101) 105(48) 137(115) 362(290) 49 OSELLE VENUE R A RIVEWAY NC-1 E. D 1551(1292) 0(1) 552(1642) 24(64) 21(123) 50 OSELLE VENUE R A LAINVIEW OAD P R 0(19) 300(304) 0(71) 6(84) 431(390) 0(0) 35(75) 0(68) 33(54) 81(19) 51 OSELLE VENUE R A YLVAN VENUE S A 39(66) 935(822) 346(187) 309(495) 353(947) 88(156) 66(54) 770(687) 65(555) 362(426) 734(975) 46(5) 52 OSELLE VENUE R A IVOLI T C 134(169) 2137(1925) 78(106) 257(468) 964(2607) 56(101) 127(85) 4(11) 95(52) 372(361) 15(11) 126(136) 53 OSELLE VENUE R A IVOLI T D 0(0) 2255(2192) 0(0) 1235(2768) 110(73) 0(0) 44(28) 54 RIVEWAY RSC-1 D 1 LARATINA VENUE C A 83(239) 839(2217) 202(359) 1982(1600) 0(0) 55 RIVEWAY RSC-1 D 2 LARATINA VENUE C A 58(139) 270(41 4) 753(2197) 169(259) 1712(1187) 268(366) 56 RIVEWAY RSC-1 D 3 LARATINA C 84(163) 674(2054) 137(282) 1980(1552) 0(0) 57 ERMINAL VENUE T A LARIBEL OAD C R STOP 3(3) 100(91) 101(117) 7(38) 110(86) 219(227) 60(215) 1617(3183) 119(155) 22(20) 2730(2312) 2(7) 58 IVOLI OAD T R A LARATINA VENUE C A 73(44) 12(21) 226(117) 0(0) 4(39) 298(219) 99(329) 604(1633) 55(255) 20(60) 1456(1216) 21(88) 59 IVOLI OAD T R B LARATINA VENUE C A 46(14) 179(111) 632(1503) 45(173) 1318(1252) 5(62) 60 OOD ORRELL RIVE W S D YLVAN VENUE S A 42(12) 5(5) 111(116) 36(114) 2(18) 32(27) 17(36) 873(1607) 81(126) 49(96) 1479(1345) 10(59) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 71 Year 2025 Intersection Levels of Service Year 2025 without the project and year 2025 with project scenarios were both evaluated for level of service. Service levels were calculated for the study intersections using the 2025 baseline and project traffic volumes and the planned and project roadway improvements. Table 17 presents the LOS results; the corresponding LOS calculation sheets are included in the technical appendix. Delay increases due to the project and the impacts associated with the project are also presented in Table 17. Table 17 shows the conditions before and after the project traffic is added. 2025 Baseline Conditions The following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2025 baseline conditions during either the AM or PM peak hours. Signalized Intersections Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Floyd Avenue Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Mc Henry Avenue at Claribel Road Mc Henry Avenue at Claratina Avenue Mc Henry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Claribel Avenue Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue Stop Controlled Intersections Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Coffee Road at Claribel Road Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue Mc Reynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 72 Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Roselle Avenue at Hillglen Avenue Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive Roselle Avenue at Plainview Road Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout Intersections Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue 2025 Project Conditions The following intersections are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2025 project conditions during either the AM or PM peak hours. Signalized Intersections Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Future Floyd Avenue Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue Stop Controlled Intersections Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Oakdale Road RSC-1 W. Driveway 1 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Coffee Road at Claribel Road ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 73 Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Roundabout Intersections Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D Stop Control Intersections That Meet Delay or Peak Hour Warrant The following locations experience sub-standard, that is, LOS E or F conditions during the AM and/or PM peak hours. Further, each intersection meets either the delay, peak hour volume or both signal warrants under with-project conditions. Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Oakdale Road RSC-1 W. Driveway 1 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Roselle Avenue at NC-1 E. Driveway RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Year 2025 Roadway Segment Levels of Service Roadway segment V/C ratios were calculated based on the existing volumes and segment capacities presented in Table 4. These capacities are conservative because they are based on the number of lanes on the mainline segments and do not necessarily consider additional turn lanes (and their added capacity) at the approaches to intersections. The volume to capacity ratios and corresponding LOS values are shown in Table 18. 2025 Baseline Conditions The following roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2025 baseline conditions. Refer to Table 18 for details regarding impacts along specific roadway segments. Sylvan Avenue – Roselle Avenue to Oakdale Road Oakdale Road – Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue Claratina Avenue – McHenry to Oakdale ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 74 2025 Project Conditions Portions of the following roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F under 2025 project conditions. Although parts of Sylvan Avenue would be substandard operations this would be the case in the baseline and the project increment of traffic does not constitute a significant impact. Refer to Table 18 for details regarding impacts along specific roadway segments. Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Roselle Avenue Oakdale Road – Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue Roselle Avenue – Tivoli Road C to Tivoli Road D Sylvan Avenue – Wood Sorrell Road to Oakdale Road ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 75 Table 17 - Comparison of 2025 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Levels of Service 2025 Baseline No Project 2025 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Impact Y/N? 1 Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 362.1 (2514.3) F(F) 286.1 (9062.0) F(F) Roundabout 4.9 A 6.3 A N 2 Boyce Lane at Sylvan Avenue Signal 36.7 D 13.5 B Signal 45.4 D 14.6 B N 3 Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 348.5 F 453.1 F Signal 353.8 F 469.0 F Y 4 Claus Road at Claribel Road Signal 445.9 F 556.8 F Signal 456.9 F 581.2 F Y 5 Claus Road at Future Floyd Avenue Signal 382.4 F 530.3 F Signal 566.1 F 673.3 F Y 6 Claus Road at Milnes Road Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) 7 Claus Road at Plainview Road Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) 8 Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) 9 Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 509.1 F 774.5 F Signal 594.2 F 871.4 F Y 10 Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Roundabout 651.5 F 5625.8 F Roundabout 796.1 F 879.0 F Y 11 Coffee Road at Claribel Road All-way STOP 3125.4 F 3637.5 F All-way STOP 3295.4 F 3914.0 F Y 12 Coffee Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 31.6 C 39.4 D Signal 33.4 C 42.6 D N 13 Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Signal 221.5 F 124.1 F Signal 217.3 F 128.4 F 14 Coffee Road at Rumble Road Signal 30.7 C 35.0 C Signal 30.3 C 35.7 D N 15 Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 49.2 D 106.9 F Signal 51.0 D 112.8 F Y 16 Coffee Road at Sylvan Meadows Drive Signal 12.1 B 28.8 C Signal 12.9 B 30.1 C N 17 Litt Road at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 3.9 A 4.2 A Roundabout 4.0 A 6.1 A N 18 Lydia Lane at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 1.8 (104.5) A(F) 13.8 (1275.5) B(F) Unsignalized 0.1 ( 16.7) A(C) 0.1 ( 15.0) A(B) N 19 McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road Signal 920.4 F 875.9 F Signal 942.7 F 889.6 F Y 20 McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue Signal 502.3 F 589.6 F Signal 560.1 F 626.3 F Y 21 McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Signal 155.4 F 229.8 F Signal 169.4 F 250.3 F Y 22 McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 146.3 (2138.0) F(F) 263.8 (8014.7) F(F) Roundabout 3.7 A 4.8 A N 23 Millbrook Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 3.4 A 3.7 A Roundabout 4.1 A 4.2 A N 24 N. NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 1.7 A 4.6 A N 25 Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Unsignalized 2069.7 (>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Signal 59.3 E 214.4 F Y 26 Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 105.7 F 164.3 F Signal 126.8 F 170.7 F Y 27 Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Unsignalized >9999(>9999) F(F) >9999(>9999) F(F) Signal 143.4 F 177.3 F Y 28 Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Signal 768.6 F 879.1 F Signal 759.6 F 792.9 F 29 Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Signal 146.5 F 272.2 F Signal 117.4 F 238.7 F 30 Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Signal 136.0 F 224.3 F Signal 76.4 E 188.4 F 31 Oakdale Road at Lancey Drive Signal 8.7 A 17.0 B Signal 8.5 A 23.0 C N 32 Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Signal 304.3 F 370.3 F Signal 10.9 B 45.6 D N 33 Oakdale Road at Manor Oak Drive Signal 14.1 B 8.3 A Signal 13.5 B 7.4 A N 34 Oakdale Road at Merle Avenue Signal 16.9 B 20.3 C Signal 16.6 B 21.1 C N 35 Oakdale Road at Morrill Road All-way STOP 172.1 F 337.4 F All-way STOP 188.0 F 467.3 F Y 36 Oakdale Road at Private Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0 ( 0.0) A(A) 0.0 ( 0.0) A(A) N ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 76 2025 Baseline No Project 2025 With Project Intersection AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Control Delay* LOS Delay* LOS Impact Y/N? 37 Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 103.7 F 141.1 F Signal 107.5 F 188.5 F Y 38 Oakdale Road at Tivoli E n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0 ( 0.0) A(A) 0.0 ( 0.0) A(A) N 39 Oakdale Road RSC-1 W. Driveway 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.0 ( 0.0) A(A) 0.0 ( 0.0) A(A) N 40 Roselle Avenue and MHDR-2 Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 ( 10.7) A(B) 0.2 ( 17.1) A(C) N 41 Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Unsignalized 205.8 (1108.4) F(F) 189.6 (3407.4) F(F) Unsignalized 224.4 (1269.2) F(F) 200.0 (3901.1) F(F) 42 Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Signal 143.0 F 174.2 F Signal 135.1 F 174.4 F 43 Roselle Avenue at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 2.3 A 2.9 A N 44 Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 2018.4 F 2523.0 F All-way STOP 2099.4 F 2438.4 F Y 45 Roselle Avenue at Floyd Avenue Roundabout 2.9 A 4.5 A Roundabout 3.0 A 5.0 A N 46 Roselle Avenue at Hillglen Avenue Roundabout 4.2 A 3.9 A Roundabout 4.3 A 4.4 A N 47 Roselle Avenue at Kodiak Drive Roundabout 3.5 A 3.9 A Roundabout 3.8 A 4.4 A N 48 Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue Signal 59.0 E 56.0 E Signal 62.5 E 60.2 E 49 Roselle Avenue at NC-1 E. Driveway n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.1 ( 9.9) A(A) 0.8 ( 20.0) A(C) N 50 Roselle Avenue at Plainview Road Unsignalized 4.7 ( 22.4) A(C) 22.4 ( 79.1) C(F) Unsignalized 3.2 ( 19.5) A(C) 6.3 ( 26.5) A(D) N 51 Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 5.6 A 17.9 C Roundabout 8.3 A 21.6 C N 52 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 32.7 D 432.3 F Y 53 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Roundabout 14.8 B 59.4 F Y 54 RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 ( 10.6) A(B) 1.7 ( 31.9) A(D) N 55 RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 19.0 B 32.1 C N 56 RSC-1 Driveway 3 at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Unsignalized 0.3 ( 10.1) A(B) 0.8 ( 20.3) A(C) N 57 Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road All-way STOP 1640.4 F 2224.6 F All-way STOP 1551.7 F 2210.1 F 58 Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 33.1 C 31.5 C N 59 Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Signal 15.3 B 8.9 A N 60 Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Unsignalized 103.1 (2243.4) F(F) 145.4 (5105.6) F(F) Roundabout 3.6 A 5.4 A N Note: n/a = not applicable * =>9999 indicates overflow delay. The delay calculations for the HCM 2000 methodology are incapable of quantifying delay. Estimated delay would exceed 9999 seconds. = Project traffic does not cause critical delay to increase by more than five seconds at signalized intersections or 30 seconds on minor approaches at unsignalized intersections. = Project traffic contributes more than 10 vehicles per lane at unsignalized intersection operating at LOS F with incremental delay less than 30 seconds. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 77 Table 18 - Comparison of 2025 Baseline and With Project Peak Hour Roadway 2025 Baseline 2025 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS AM PM Impact Y/N? Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road EB 1 rural road 1.300 F 4.419 F 1 rural road 1.844 F 4.757 F 0.544 0.338 Y McHenry Avenue to Coffee Road WB 1 rural road 4.612 F 2.978 F 1 rural road 5.007 F 3.329 F 0.394 0.351 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road EB 1 rural road 1.037 F 3.548 F 1 rural road 1.704 F 4.343 F 0.668 0.796 Y Coffee Road to Oakdale Road WB 1 rural road 3.891 F 2.854 F 1 rural road 4.589 F 3.439 F 0.698 0.584 Y Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.463 A 1.145 F n/a n/a Y Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 B 0.711 A n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway # 1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.410 A 1.092 F n/a n/a Y RSC-1 Driveway #1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.881 D 0.711 C n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.360 A 1.038 F n/a n/a Y RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 D 0.690 B n/a n/a N RSC-1 Driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.337 A 0.985 E n/a n/a Y RSC-1 driveway #3 to Tivoli Road A WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.880 B 0.690 A n/a n/a N Tivoli Road A to Tivoli Road B EB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.301 A 0.745 C n/a n/a N Tivoli Road A to Tivoli Road B WB 1 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.665 B 0.606 B n/a n/a N Tivoli Road B to Roselle Avenue EB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 unsignalized arterial 0.213 A 0.539 A n/a n/a N Tivoli Road B to Roselle Avenue WB 0 rural road n/a n/a n/a n/a 3 signalized arterial 0.684 B 0.659 B n/a n/a N Roselle Avenue Claratina Avenue to Tivoli Road C NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.452 A 0.471 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.396 A 0.371 A -0.056 -0.100 N Claratina Avenue to Tivoli Road C SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.256 A 0.300 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.125 A 0.389 A -0.131 0.089 N Tivoli Road C to Tivoli Road D NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.452 A 0.471 A 2 unsignalized arterial 1.192 F 1.224 F 0.740 0.753 Y Tivoli Road C to Tivoli Road D SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.256 A 0.300 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.655 B 1.495 F 0.399 1.195 Y Tivoli Road D to Sylvan Avenue NB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.470 A 0.481 A 2 unsignalized arterial 0.682 B 0.651 B 0.212 0.171 N Tivoli Road D to Sylvan Avenue SB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.299 A 0.627 B 2 unsignalized arterial 0.375 A 0.799 C 0.077 0.172 N Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.461 A 0.830 D 2 unsignalized arterial 0.451 A 0.648 B -0.010 -0.182 N Roselle Avenue to McReynolds Avenue WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.738 C 0.717 C 2 unsignalized arterial 0.584 A 0.659 B -0.154 -0.058 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.454 A 0.889 D 2 unsignalized arterial 0.436 A 0.758 C -0.018 -0.131 N McReynolds Avenue to Aria Way WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.793 C 0.728 C 2 unsignalized arterial 0.671 B 0.670 B -0.122 -0.059 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive EB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.539 A 0.934 E 2 unsignalized arterial 0.565 A 0.870 D 0.027 -0.064 N Aria Way to Wood Sorrell Drive WB 2 unsignalized arterial 0.834 D 0.748 C 2 unsignalized arterial 0.759 C 0.763 C -0.076 0.016 N Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane EB 1 unsignalized arterial 0.940 E 1.975 F 1 unsignalized arterial 0.971 E 1.769 F 0.031 -0.206 N Wood Sorrell Drive to Lydia Lane WB 1 unsignalized arterial 1.760 F 1.544 F 1 unsignalized arterial 1.622 F 1.488 F -0.138 -0.056 N Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road EB 1 signalized arterial 1.207 F 2.679 F 1 signalized arterial 1.256 F 2.411 F 0.049 -0.268 N Lydia Lane to Oakdale Road WB 2 signalized arterial 1.197 F 1.025 F 2 signalized arterial 1.113 F 0.991 E -0.084 -0.034 N ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 78 2025 Baseline 2025 WP v/c change AM PM AM PM Location Dir Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS Lane type v/c LOS v/c LOS AM PM Impact Y/N? Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way NB 1 signalized arterial 3.333 F 3.031 F 3 signalized arterial 1.128 F 1.143 F -2.205 -1.888 N Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way SB 3 signalized arterial 0.644 B 1.203 F 3 signalized arterial 0.777 C 1.237 F 0.132 0.034 N Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E NB 1 signalized arterial 3.549 F 2.817 F 3 signalized arterial 1.201 F 1.098 F -2.348 -1.720 N Bridgewood Way to Tivoli Road E SB 3 signalized arterial 0.638 B 1.137 F 3 signalized arterial 0.737 C 1.172 F 0.099 0.034 N Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue NB 1 signalized arterial 3.567 F 3.135 F 3 signalized arterial 1.213 F 1.208 F -2.353 -1.926 N Tivoli Road E to Mable Avenue SB 3 signalized arterial 0.648 B 1.288 F 3 signalized arterial 0.765 C 1.371 F 0.117 0.083 Y Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue NB 1 signalized arterial 3.624 F 3.163 F 3 signalized arterial 1.167 F 1.133 F -2.457 -2.029 N Mable Avenue to Future Claratina Avenue SB 3 signalized arterial 0.657 B 1.300 F 3 signalized arterial 0.764 C 1.260 F 0.108 -0.040 N n/a = not applicable does not exist in baseline. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 79 CHAPTER 7 – PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Project impacts and proposed mitigation measures for each of the horizon years (2012, 2017 and 2025) are discussed in this chapter. Mitigation measures are recommended at all of those locations where the development of the project results in significant impacts. Significant Impact Criteria Standards of significance were selected based on criteria used by the City of Modesto and accepted professional practice for transportation engineering. Impacts were considered significant if the Project would result in any of the following: A. Deterioration of a signalized intersection from LOS D (or better) to LOS E or LOS F, or an increase in the service volume of any approach by 5 percent or more for a signalized intersection operating at LOS E or LOS F under baseline conditions, or an increase in average delay of 5 or more seconds for a signalized intersection operating at LOS E or LOS F under baseline conditions. B. Deterioration of a controlled movement at an unsignalized intersection from LOS E or better to LOS F or – at intersections where a controlled movement already operates at LOS F the satisfaction of one of the following conditions. 1. The satisfaction of the peak hour volume signal warrant as a result of project traffic. 2. An increase in minor movement delay of 30 seconds or more. 3. If the peak hour volume signal warrant is already met without the project and delay cannot be measured, an increase in traffic of ten or more vehicles per lane on any approach. C. Deterioration of a roadway segment from LOS D or better to LOS E or LOS F, or an increase in the Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.05 or more for a segment operating at LOS E or LOS F under Baseline Conditions. D. Inconsistencies with the City's Bicycle Master Plan. E. Inadequate pedestrian facilities along the project frontage or lack of access between those facilities, the parking areas, and the buildings within the project area. F. Parking demand exceeds the proposed parking supply. G. Installation of a new signal without achieving acceptable levels of service. All of the above criteria apply either individually or cumulative, for each phase of the scenario (phase) proposed project. Year 2012 Impacts Significant year 2012 project impacts were identified using the City of Modesto’s significance criteria. Intersection and roadway segments with significant project related impacts are described below. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 80 Transportation Impact 1 – The project will have a significant impact on signalized intersection operations under 2012 conditions. Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Coffee Road at Sylvan Road McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Transportation Impact 2 – The project will have a significant impact on stop controlled and roundabout controlled intersection operations under 2012 conditions. Claus Road at Milnes Road Coffee Road and Claratina Road Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Transportation Impact 3 – The project will have a significant impact on roadway operations under 2012 conditions. Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue – Roselle Avenue to Oakdale Road Oakdale Road – Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue Deficient Intersections that are not 2012 Project Impacts While several intersections would remain at unacceptable LOS E or F with the project, the project is not considered to have caused the unacceptable conditions because they would not meet the significance criteria identified. The following intersections would not experience an increase in delay with the project of five seconds or more at signalized intersections or 30 seconds or more for the minor movement at an unsignalized intersection: Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 81 2012 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 1, 2 and 3 – Measures to mitigate intersection and roadway segment impacts are presented in Tables 19 and 20. Table 19 - 2012 Intersection Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impacts 1 & 2) Intersection Impacted Peak Hour Mitigation Measure LOS/Delay Before LOS/Delay After 3. Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue AM/PM Add third NB and SB through lane, and second WB left turn lane plus change signalization to allow for overlap on all approaches E (71.1)/ F (112.7) C (32.3)/D (45.2) 6. Claus Road at Milnes Road AM/PM Signalize intersection and add exclusive NB through lane. F(F) (395.1(6388.2))/F(F) (383.0(>9999)) C (25.5)/D (45.3) 9. Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue AM/PM Add second EB left turn lane, plus a second NB left turn lane and second SB through lane, plus change signalization to allow for overlap on all approaches F (197.9)/ F (337.9 ) C (25.9)/D (39.7) 10. Coffee Road at Claratina PM This intersection may fail based on projected approach volumes given future trip generation estimates. At 75% build-out the City will conduct a traffic study to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. 11. Coffee Road at Claribel Road AM/PM Signalize Intersection. Add exclusive left turn and right turn lanes on all approaches. Convert shared lanes on all approaches to exclusive through lanes. Add second eastbound and westbound through lanes. F (1239.5)/F (1524.2) C (28.1)/C (34.9) 13. Coffee at Mable Avenue AM Add separate WB left and right turn lanes E (71.2) C (33.8) 15. Coffee at Sylvan PM Add an exclusive eastbound right turn lane E (72.3) D (52.7) 19. McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road AM/PM Add second left turn lanes on NB and SB approaches plus second and third through lane on the EB and WB approaches F (285.7)/F (288.4) D (41.6)/D (50.3) 20. McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue AM/PM Add third and forth NB and SB through lanes plus third EB and WB through lane F (137.3)/(F) 167.6 D (47)/D (54.2) 21. McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue AM/PM Add second NB and SB left turn lane plus forth NB and SB through lane F (137.3)/(F) 167.6 C (37.7)/D (48.4) 28. Oakdale Road at Claribel Road AM/PM Add second NB left and second SB through lanes plus second and third EB and WB through lanes E (55.5)/(F) 97.2 D (41.4)/D (47.3) 31. Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue PM Add second SB through lanes F (87.1) D (36.9) 35. Oakdale Road at Morrill Avenue Signalize intersection and add exclusive left and right turn lanes on the NB and SB approaches. F (52.7)/F (152.8) C (25.2) /C (30.6.) 37. Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue PM Add second EB left and third SB through lanes E (75.1) D (50.5) 41. Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive AM/PM Signalize intersections and add exclusive left turn and right turn lanes to NB and SB approaches. C(F) (16.5.(91.7))/A(F) (7.7(104.7)) B (19.3)/A (9.8) 42. Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue PM Add second EB and WB though lanes F (90.1) D (38.3) 44. Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road AM/PM Add exclusive left turn lanes on all approaches. Add exclusive right turn lane on NB and SB approaches. Add second, exclusive through lanes on EB and WB approaches. F (922.0)/F (1090.4) 48.6 D/43.7 D 57. Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road AM/PM Signalize intersections. Add exclusive left turn lane on all approaches. Add second EB through lane. F (388.6)/F (673.0) D (50.2)/D (37.1) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 82 Roadway mitigations are shown in Table 20. Note that the controlling factor in roadway congestion is the intersection at any approach. Therefore where the intersection does or can be mitigated to operate adequately the mitigation measures recommended have been sized to match the through lanes on the intersection approaches. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 83 Table 20 - 2012 Roadway Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impact 3) Location Dir Unmitigated Lanes Lanes Required for LOS D Mitigation Measure Mitigated Lanes Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road EB 1 2 Add 2nd EB lane 2 McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road WB 1 2 Add 2nd WB lane 2 Sylvan Avenue Roselle Avenue to Oakdale Road WB 2 3 Add 2nd WB lane ( 3rd WB lane not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 2* Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way SB 2 3 Add 3rd SB lanes 3 Mable Avenue to Claratina Avenue SB 1 3 Add 2nd SB lane and 3rd SB lane 3 * = intersection Level of Service requirements less extensive than roadway LOS requirements shown here. Mitigation measures based on intersection requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 84 Year 2017 Impacts Significant year 2017 project impacts were identified using the City of Modesto’s significance criteria. Intersection and roadway segments with significant project related impacts are described below. Transportation Impact 4 – The project will have a significant impact on signalized intersection operations under 2017 conditions. Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Claus Road at Floyd Avenue Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue McHenry Avenue / Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Transportation Impact 5 – The project will have a significant impact on stop controlled intersection operations under 2017 conditions. Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Transportation Impact 6 – The project will have a significant impact on roundabout intersection operations under 2017 conditions. Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Transportation Impact 7 – The project will have a significant impact on roadway operations under 2017 conditions. Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Roselle Avenue Roselle Avenue – Tivoli Road C to Tivoli D Oakdale Road – Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 85 Deficient Intersections that are not 2017 Project Impacts While several intersections would remain at unacceptable LOS E or F with the project, the project is not considered to have caused the unacceptable conditions and because they would not meet the significance criteria identified. The following intersections would not experience an increase in delay with the project of five seconds or more at signalized intersections or 30 seconds or more for the minor movement at an unsignalized intersection: Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Crawford Road 2017 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 4, 5 and 6 – Measures to mitigate intersection and roadway segment impacts are presented in Tables 21 and 22. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 86 Table 21 - 2017 Intersection Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impacts 4, 5 & 6) Intersection Impacted Peak Hour Mitigation Measure LOS/Delay Before LOS/Delay After 3. Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue AM/PM Add second NB, SB and left turn lane and separate EB and WB right turn lane F (164.7)/F (237.7) C (30.4)/D (43.6) 4. Claus Road at Claribel Road AM/PM Add second SB through lane second NB left turn lane second EB right turn lane and second WB through lane F (181.9)/F (267.3) D (36.5)/D (50.4) 5. Claus Road at Floyd Avenue AM/PM Add second NB and SB through lanes and second NB left turn lane F (207.9)/F (274.1) D (39.4)/D (40.6) 6. Claus Road at Milnes Road AM/PM Signalize intersection. Add second exclusive through lane and second SB through lane. F(F) (3368(>9999))/F (8253.1(>9999) C (21.2)/C (20.4) 7. Claus Road at Plainview Road AM/PM Signalize intersection. Add exclusive left turn lane on NB and SB approaches. Add second NB and SB through lanes. F(F) (535.4)/F(F) (>9999(>9999)) B (19.0)/C (23.1) 9. Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue AM/PM Add second EB right turn lane F (323.4)/F (504.7) B (17)/C (32) 10. Coffee Road at Claratina Road AM/PM This intersection may fail based on projected approach volumes given future trip generation estimates. At 75% build-out the City will conduct a traffic study to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. 11. Coffee Road at Claribel Road AM Signalize intersection and convert existing lanes to through lanes. Add exclusive SB left turn lane and two exclusive NB, EB and WB left turn lanes. Add second SB and second and third EB and WB through lanes. Add exclusive right turn lane on all approaches. Implement overlap phasing on NB right turn lane. F (2018.0) D (40.4) 15. Coffee Road/Sylvan Road PM Add exclusive SB, EB and WB right turn lanes F (88.5) D (45.7) 19. McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road AM/PM Add second left turn lanes on EB and WB approaches plus third through lane on the NB and SB approaches and fourth lane through lane on WB approach. F (528.4)/F (500.5) D (41.7)/D (48.6) 20. McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue AM/PM Add third and forth NB and SB through lanes plus third EB and WB through lane Add second LT lane on all approaches and separate right turn lane on NB, SB and WB approaches. Implement overlap phasing on all approaches F (299.4)/F (348.1) D (36.4)/D (52.3) 21. McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue AM/PM Add third EB and WB through lane F (85.9)/F (163.6) C (34.4)/D (48.7) 25. Oakdale at Bridgewood PM Add exclusive EB right turn lane with overlap phasing. F (118.2) D (30.1) 26. Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue AM Add third EB and WB through lanes and implement overlap phasing on the NB, WB and EB approaches E (76.9)/F (90.3) D (44.2)/D (53.4) 35. Oakdale Road at Morrill Road AM/PM Same as 2012 F (89.1)/F (284.1) C (28.3)/D (41.2) 37. Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue AM/PM Add third NB through lane and implement overlap phasing on EB approach. E (63.9)/F (135.6) C (34.3)/D (51.5) 41. Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive AM/PM Same as 2012 E(F) (47.3(269.7)/D(F) (27.7(399.2)) C (26.8)/B (18.3) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 87 Intersection Impacted Peak Hour Mitigation Measure LOS/Delay Before LOS/Delay After 44. Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road AM Signalize intersection. Add exclusive left turn lanes to NB and SB approaches and two exclusive left turn lanes to EB and WB approaches. Add second exclusive through lane to SB approach and second and third through lanes to EB and WB approaches. Add exclusive right turn lanes to all approaches F (1281.8)/F (1513.3) C (31.4)/D (38.5) 52. Roselle at Tivoli C AM/PM This intersection may fail based on projected approach volumes given future trip generation estimates. At 75% build-out the City will conduct a traffic study to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. 57. Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road AM/PM Signalize intersection. Add exclusive left turn lane on all approaches. Add second EB and WB through lane. F (758.1)/F (1182.4) C (27.2)/D (42.5) Although the segments of Sylvan Avenue from Roselle Avenue to Oakdale Road and southbound Oakdale Road from Bridgewood Way to Mable Avenue would operate at LOS F under this scenario, these would do so under baseline conditions as well and the increment due to project traffic is not sufficient to result in a significant impact under 2017 conditions. Roadway mitigation measures are shown on Table 22. Note that in some instances additional lanes are not recommended because intersection operations which create the roadway bottlenecks do not require the additional upstream capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 88 Table 22 - 2017 Roadway Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impact 7) Location Dir Unmitigated Lanes Lanes Required for LOS D Mitigation Measure Mitigated Lanes Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road EB 1 2 Add 2nd EB lane 2 McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road WB 1 2 Add 2nd WB lane 2 Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 EB 3 4 None(4th EB lane not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* RSC-1 Driveway # 1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 EB 3 4 None(4th EB lane not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 EB 3 4 None (4th EB lane not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* RSC-1 Driveway #3 Avenue to Tivoli Road A EB 3 4 None (4th EB lanes not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* Roselle Avenue Tivoli Road C to Tivoli D NB 2 3 None (3rd and 4th NB lanes not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 2* Tivoli Road C to Tivoli D SB 2 3 None (3rd and 4th SB lanes not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 2* Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way SB 3 4 None (4th SB lanes not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* Tivoli Road E to Mable SB 3 4 None( 4th EB lane not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* * = intersection Level of Service requirements less extensive than roadway LOS requirements shown here. Mitigation measures based on intersection requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 89 Year 2025 Impacts Significant year 2025 project impacts were identified using the City of Modesto’s significance criteria. Intersection and roadway segments with significant project related impacts are described below. Transportation Impact 8 – The project will have a significant impact on signalized intersection operations under 2025 conditions. Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue Claus Road at Claribel Road Claus Road at Floyd Avenue Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue McHenry Avenue / Claribel Road McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Oakdale at Bridgewood Way Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Transportation Impact 9 – The project will have a significant impact on stop controlled intersection operations under 2025 conditions. Claus Road at Milnes Road Claus Road at Plainview Road Coffee Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Morrill Road Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road Transportation Impact 10 – The project will have a significant impact on roundabout operations under 2025 conditions. Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue Roselle Avenue and Tivoli Road C Roselle Avenue and Tivoli Road D Transportation Impact 11 – The project will have a significant impact on roadway operations under 2025 conditions. Claratina Avenue – McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road Roselle Avenue – Tivoli Road C to Tivoli D Oakdale Road – Sylvan Avenue to Claratina Avenue ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 90 Note that although the segments of Sylvan Avenue from Roselle to Oakdale Road would operate at LOS F under this scenario, these would do so under baseline conditions as well and the increment due to project traffic is not sufficient to result in a significant impact under 2025 conditions. Deficient Intersections that are not 2025 Project Impacts While several intersections would remain at unacceptable LOS E or F with the project, the project is not considered to have caused the unacceptable conditions and because they would not meet the significance criteria identified. The following intersections would not experience an increase in delay with the project of five seconds or more at signalized intersections or 30 seconds or more for the minor movement at an unsignalized intersection: Claus Road at Santa Fe Avenue Coffee Road at Mable Avenue Oakdale Road at Claribel Road Oakdale Road at Crawford Road Oakdale Road at Floyd Avenue Roselle Avenue at Briggsmore Avenue Roselle Avenue at Merle Avenue The following intersections would experience an increase in delay with the project of five seconds or more however these unsignalized intersections would not meet signal warrants as a result of project traffic because warrants are already met under baseline conditions: ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 91 2025 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measures 7, 8, 9 and 10 – Measures to mitigate intersection and roadway segment impacts are presented in Tables 23 and 24. Table 23 - 2025 Intersection Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impacts 8, 9 & 10) Intersection Impacted Peak Hour Mitigation Measure LOS/Delay Before LOS/Delay After 3. Claus Road at Briggsmore Avenue AM/PM Add second EB and third WB through lane and second SB right turn lane F (353.8)/F (469) C (31)/D (51.4) 4. Claus Road at Claribel Road AM/PM Add second left turn lane on the NB, EB and WB approaches plus a third through lane on the SB and WB approach. Provide free right turn lanes on the EB approach and a second SB right turn lane F (456.9)/F (581.2) D (42.1)/D (51.4) 5. Claus Road at Floyd Avenue AM/PM Add second exclusive left turn lane on all approaches. Add second EB through lane and second and third NB, SB and WB through lanes. Add second right turn lanes on EB and WB approaches. Operate all right turns with overlap phasing. F (566.1)/F (879.0) D (35.8)/D (52.8) 6. Claus Road at Milnes Road AM/PM Signalize intersection. Add two exclusive SB through lanes and second and third exclusive SB through lanes and F(F) (>9999(>9999)/ F(F) (>9999(>9999) C (22.4)/C (21.1) 7. Claus Road at Plainview Road AM/PM Signalize intersections. Add exclusive left turn lanes. Add second and third NB and SB through lanes. F(F) (>9999(>9999)/ F(F) (>9999(>9999) C (34.0)/D (38.2) 9. Claus Road at Sylvan Avenue PM Add third SB through and separate SB right turn. Add second EB left and provide a free EB right turn lane. F (594.2)/F (871.4) C (24.0)/D (52.2) 10. Coffee Road at Claratina Avenue AM/PM This intersection may fail based on projected approach volumes given future trip generation estimates. At 75% build-out the City will conduct a traffic study to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. 11. Coffee Road at Claribel Avenue AM/PM Signalize intersection. Add three NB and two SB, EB and WB left turn lanes. And second NB and SB through lanes and second, third and fourth EB and WB through lanes. Add exclusive right turn lanes on all approaches. F (3295.4)/F (3914.0) D (54.5)/D (48.6) 15. Coffee Road at Sylvan Avenue PM Same as 2017 F (112.8) D (54.2) 19. McHenry Avenue at Claribel Road AM/PM Requires Grade Separated Interchange or Split Diamond F (942.7)/F (889.6) Potentially Significant and Unavoidable (SU) 20. McHenry Avenue at Claratina Avenue AM/PM Requires Grade Separated Interchange or Split Diamond F (560.1)/F (626.3) Potentially Significant and Unavoidable (SU) 21. McHenry Avenue at Sylvan Avenue AM/PM Add forth through lane on EB and WB approaches plus provide right turn lane on NB and WB approaches F (169.4)/F (250.3) C (33.6)/D (53.3) 25. Oakdale at Bridgewood Way AM/PM Same as 2017 E (59.3)/F(214.4) C (21.2)/D(47.6) 26. Oakdale Road at Briggsmore Avenue AM/PM Provide third and fourth NB and fourth SB through lanes plus a separate SB right turn lane F (126.8)/F (170.7) D (46.6)/D (40.0) 27. Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue AM/PM Add fourth NB and WB and third and fourth SB through lanes. Add F (143.4)/F (177.3) C (33.9)/D (44.8) ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 92 Intersection Impacted Peak Hour Mitigation Measure LOS/Delay Before LOS/Delay After third NB and second SB and EB left turn lanes plus second SB and EB right turn lane 35. Oakdale Road at Morrill Road AM/PM Signalize intersection and add exclusive left and right turn lanes on the NB and SB approaches. Add second exclusive southbound through lane. F (188.0)/F (467.3) D (33.9)/D (44.8) 37. Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue AM/PM Add fourth NB and SB through lane plus third EB and WB through lane. Add separate right turn lane on NB and SB approaches. Implement Overlap phasing on EB right turn F (107.5)/F (188.5) D (40.0)/D (44.4) 41. Roselle Avenue at Belharbour Drive AMPM Same as 2012 F (224.4(1269.2)/F(F) (200.0(3901.1)) C (34.8)/C (28.7) 44. Roselle Avenue at Claribel Road AM/PM Signalize intersection. Add exclusive left turn lanes to NB and SB approaches and two exclusive left turn lanes to EB and WB approaches. Add second exclusive through lane to NB and SB approach and second, third and fourth through lanes to EB and WB approaches. Add exclusive right turn lanes to all approaches with overlap phasing. F (2099.4)/F (2438.4) D(30.5)/D(46.3)/ 52. Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road C PM This intersection may fail based on projected approach volumes given future trip generation estimates. At 75% build-out the City will conduct a traffic study to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. 53. Roselle Avenue at Tivoli Road D PM This intersection may fail based on projected approach volumes given future trip generation estimates. At 75% build-out the City will conduct a traffic study to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control. 57. Terminal Avenue at Claribel Road AM/PM Signalize intersection. Add exclusive left turn lane on all approaches. Add second and third EB and WB through lane. F (1551.7)/F (2210.1) B (19.4)/C (32.5) Roadway mitigation measures are shown on Table 24. Note that in some instances additional lanes are not recommended because intersection operations which create the roadway bottlenecks do not require the additional upstream capacity. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 93 Table 24 - 2025 Roadway Mitigation Measures (Transportation Impact 11) Location Dir Unmitigated Lanes Lanes Required for LOS D Mitigation Measure Mitigated Lanes Claratina Avenue McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road EB 1 2 Add 2nd EB lane 2 McHenry Avenue to Oakdale Road WB 1 2 Add 2nd WB lane 2 Oakdale Road to RSC-1 Driveway #1 EB 3 4 None( 4th EB lane not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* RSC-1 Driveway # 1 to RSC-1 Driveway #2 EB 3 4 None( 4th EB lane not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* RSC-1 Driveway #2 to RSC-1 Driveway #3 EB 3 4 None (4th lane not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* RSC-1 Driveway #3 Avenue to Tivoli Road A EB 3 4 None (4th EB lanes not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* Roselle Avenue Tivoli Road C to Tivoli D NB 2 4 None (3rd and 4th NB lanes not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 2* Tivoli Road C to Tivoli D SB 2 4 None (3rd and 4th SB lanes not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 2* Oakdale Road Sylvan Avenue to Bridgewood Way SB 3 4 None (4th SB lanes not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* Mable Avenue to Claratina Avenue SB 3 4 None (4th SB lanes not needed after mitigation of intersection)* 3* * = intersection Level of Service requirements less extensive than roadway LOS requirements shown here. Mitigation measures based on intersection requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 94 CHAPTER 8 – SITE ACCESS AND ON-SITE CIRCULATION This chapter discusses the access to the Tivoli Specific Plan area and on-site circulation. While this traffic assessment was directed at a program level EIR analysis, a portion of the site plan for the Specific Plan area was provided. The two regional shopping center areas, RSC-1 and RSC-2, while not defined on the site plan did have a very preliminary layout concept plan for each component. Based upon the site plan for the Specific Plan area and the two shopping center concept plans, some evaluation of the site access and on-site circulation was able to be accommodated. Regional Shopping Center Site Access Issues As part of the development of intersection mitigation measures, vehicle queuing within left turn lanes was considered. At all of the mitigated intersections, the number of recommended left turn lanes, if built to normal standards, will accommodate the peak hour left turn volumes projected for each movement. Along Claratina Avenue between Oakdale Road and Tivoli Road A, it is recommended that traffic signals be provided. Further, the exiting approaches from the regional shopping center should be designed to provide separate left and through-right turn lanes. Along Claratina Avenue eastbound, it is further recommended that deceleration lanes for right turning vehicles be included in the final site design for the shopping center. The preliminary concept plan for RSC-1 provided truck loading at the rear of the site with access at Mable Avenue. The concept plan must be more clearly defined to make sure that trucks can maneuver within the regional shopping center. Access to RSC-1 along Oakdale Road should be restricted to right turns in and right turns out between Oakdale Road and Mable Avenue. For RSC-2, the exit approaches to Oakdale Road should be designed to provide separate left, through and right turn lanes. Truck access will be very critical for this center. The final site plan must make sure that trucks can maneuver within the regional shopping center. On-Site Circulation Issues The Tivoli Specific Plan does not provide good connections between the residential areas and the regional shopping centers. Consideration should be given to modify the site plan to provide both vehicular as well as non-motorized connections between the centers and the surrounding residential areas. The future school site must be designed to minimize peak hour loading and unloading issues on the surrounding street system. Generally, schools peak between 8:00 and 8:30 AM and 2:30 and 3:00 PM. While these hours do not coincide with normal adjacent street peak hours, the traffic congestion caused by school student pick-up and drop-offs can significantly impact the roadways adjacent to the school. This congestion directly impacts the normal traffic using these facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 95 Transit As part of the development of the Tivoli Specific Plan area, consideration of providing transit bus stops and expanded peak hour and baseline service should be considered. Transit stops should be provided to serve the regional shopping centers as well as the roadways around the Specific Plan area. If possible, park and ride lots should be developed within the site to capture transit riders. If park and ride lots are developed, local and regional transit services should be modified to access these facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- Traffic Impact Assessment - Tivoli Specific Plan EIR Dowling Associates, Inc. Page 96 APPENDICES The appendices for this study are included under separate cover at the City of Modesto and are available for review at the City offices. The appendix is extensive due to the many development scenarios evaluated and the number of signal warrant analyses that were needed. The appendix is 740 pages. Besides the intersection level of service worksheets, the appendix includes the trip distribution tables for the project traffic based upon the City of Modesto Travel Demand Model. The appendix is divided as follows: Appendix A – City model node to traffic report intersection number correspondence table. Appendix B – Comparison of Model and ITE Trip Generation Appendix C – Existing peak hour level of service and signal warrant results Appendix D – 2012 Baseline peak hour level of service and signal warrant results Appendix E – 2012 With Project peak hour level of service and signal warrant results Appendix F – 2017 Baseline peak hour level of service and signal warrant results Appendix G – 2017 With Project peak hour level of service and signal warrant results Appendix H – 2025 Baseline peak hour level of service and signal warrant results Appendix I – 2025 With Project peak hour level of service and signal warrant results Appendix J – 2012, 2017 and 2025 With Project Mitigated peak hour level of service results ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D.3: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS FOR MCREYNOLDS AVENUE WITHIN THE TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN AREA ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Memorandum February 12, 2008 To: Barbara Sahm, Turnstone Consulting From: Michael Carroll Reference P05033.11 Subject: Evaluation of Alternative Configurations for McReynolds Avenue within the Tivoli Specific Plan Area This memo presents the findings of analysis of circulation alternatives to the proposed extension of McReynolds Avenue further into the Tivoli specific plan area connecting to proposed Tivoli Road C. The first alternative involves closure of McReynolds Avenue as a cul de sac so that no segment would exist north of Tivoli Road D. Under this scenario it is has been assumed here that development accessing the closed segment would instead access Tivoli Road C directly. The second alternative would involve shifting the segment of extended McReynolds Avenue between Tivoli Road D and Tivoli Road C to the east by a few hundred feet so that the shifted segment was aligned with Tivoli Road B as it extends south from Claratina Avenue. Under this scenario the MDHR2 development would no longer access Tivoli Road C at the intersection of Tivoli Road B/Tivoli Road C but would be provided direct access to McReynolds Avenue which would form the western boundary of that development area. The alternatives were evaluated by performing traffic assignment analysis with the 2003 Modesto General Plan Model which was the tool used in the original Specific Plan EIR. The raw model volume differences between the original EIR assumptions and the two aforementioned alternatives were used to evaluate changes in the peak hour street segment assignment and identify trip diversion patterns. These raw model volume differences were also added to the final adjusted EIR volumes to develop adjusted alternative intersection turning movements consistent with the turning movements and level of service analysis contained in the EIR. 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 [PHONE REDACTED] Oakland, CA 94612 [PHONE REDACTED] fax www.dowlinginc.com [EMAIL REDACTED] Dowling Associates, Inc. ---PAGE BREAK--- Findings Shifted McReynolds Option The model results indicate small shifts in traffic differences in the assignment of trips due to the change in location of the link. These changes result from the greater proximity between the shifted leg of McReynolds and the arterial Roselle Avenue and from the assumption that MHDR2 development would gain direct access condition onto the shifted leg of McReynolds. The effect would be to relieve traffic on a short segment of Roselle. The added traffic along the shifted portion of McReynolds would not result in appreciably higher volumes than found elsewhere in the Specific Plan area under other scenarios and are not considered an impact. McReynolds Cul de Sac Option The closure option would reduce traffic on the remaining portion of McReynolds Avenue south of Tivoli Road D and force the rerouting of roughly 50 AM and 125 PM peak hour trips. During the critical PM peak hour, the largest diversion would be about 50 trips to Roselle Avenue. About 35 trips would be shifted to Aria Way and the remaining traffic would take diffuse routes on other internal streets. The closure of the road would have the largest impact at the proposed roundabouts on Roselle Road at Tivoli Road C and Tivoli Road D which were already identified at LOS F, significantly impacted in the Tivoli Specific Plan EIR. In comparison to baseline conditions in the traffic analysis for the EIR the additional traffic does not appreciably exacerbate the impact significance or affect the feasibility of mitigation identified in the EIR (i.e. that at 75% build-out, the City will conduct a traffic study to determine the adequacy of the intersection traffic control). Raw Model Roadway Link Increments Table 1 shows raw model link volumes and volume differences for McReynolds Avenue and parallel routes under 2025 EIR conditions, the Shifted McReynolds Avenue option and the McReynolds Cul de sac option. Although some of the differences could be attributable to model noise, in the case of either option patterns are discernable. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 1 – Selected Two-way PM Peak Hour Link Volumes Location Two-way PM Peak Hour Volume Volume Difference Aria McReynolds Tivoli Road B Roselle Aria McReynolds Tivoli Road B Roselle EIR North of Tivoli C - - 320 3144 North of Tivoli D 232 123 - 3106 South of Tivoli D 345 225 - 3023 Shifted McReynolds North of Tivoli C - - 371 3093 51 -51 North of Tivoli D 238 193 - 3042 6 70 -64 South of Tivoli D 346 199 - 3030 1 -26 7 McReynolds Cul de sac North of Tivoli C - - 308 3128 -12 -16 North of Tivoli D 263 0 - 3156 31 -123 50 South of Tivoli D 381 121 - 3058 36 -104 35 Under the shifted McReynolds option, there is an increase in traffic on the shifted segment of McReynolds north of Tivoli Road D. This traffic is not matched by an increase in travel along McReynolds Avenue south of Tivoli Road D which is an indication that it is not purely cut though traffic but it appears to be internal traffic that is bypassing a portion of Roselle Avenue (from Tivoli Road D north to Claratina). This is further evinced by the proportionate reduction in traffic along Roselle north of Tivoli Road D. The net increment on the shifted portion of McReynolds, 70 trips, brings the total to 200 trips but this is not substantially greater than other collector and local street peak hour volumes within the specific plan area (compare for instance the volumes along Aria way which reach 350 peak hour vehicles). It would not constitute an impact Under the McReynolds Cul de sac options the elimination of the segment north of Tivoli Road D creates a profound reduction in the traffic on the segment of McReynolds south of Tivoli Road D as well (nearly 50 percent). The traffic that is eliminated spreads to other roads with the largest portion diverting to Roselle Avenue. This is deemed appropriate given that Roselle has a functional classification as an unsignalized arterial. The remaining diversion is diffuse with the largest remaining amount falling on Aria Way – but not to a degree that is disproportionate to existing traffic levels. ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersection Turning Movement Increments Raw model differences were calculated for each turning movement at every study intersection along the perimeter of the specific plan area. The differences were added back to the turning movements used in the Tivoli Specific Plan EIR to evaluate intersection levels of service for the McReynolds Avenue alternatives and compare them with results for the EIR analysis. Table 2 shows a comparison of intersection LOS for the 2025 With Project condition from the EIR and the two alternatives under consideration. The levels of service are very similar in most every case. The most notable results are that the Shifted McReynolds option results in a slight improvement in LOS at Roselle Avenue/Tivoli Road C whereas the McReynolds Cul de sac option results in a degradation of LOS at Roselle Avenue/Tivoli Road C and Roselle Avenue/Tivoli Road D. In each of these cases and under the EIR conditions the level of service rating would be LOS F. In the EIR the intersections of Roselle Avenue/Tivoli Road C and Roselle Avenue/Tivoli Road D were both identified as significantly impacted under 2025 with project conditions compared to 2025 baseline conditions. This finding would remain in effect with either of the two alternatives for McReynolds Avenue. The mitigation identified in the EIR requires that the City establish the adequacy of the intersection control at these intersections at 75 percent of build out of the specific plan area. The incremental traffic associated with the Cul de sac alternative does in no way obviate the need for this to occur and given the less than one percent increase over the EIR volumes should not be expected to negate effective measures to modify the intersection control at that time. The traffic from the Shifted McReynolds option actually improved conditions at of Roselle Avenue/Tivoli Road C and has a negligible effect at Roselle Avenue/Tivoli Road D. ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 2 – Scenario LOS Comparison 2025 EIR Alignment Shifted Cul de Sac Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM ID# Name Control Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS 2806 Aria Way at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 4.9 A 6.3 A 4.9 A 6.6 A 4.9 A 6.5 A 3928 McReynolds Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 3.7 A 4.8 A 3.7 A 4.6 A 3.6 A 4.4 A 4339 N. NC-1 Driveway at Claratina Avenue Signal 1.7 A 4.6 A 1.7 A 4.7 A 1.7 A 4.6 A 2876 Oakdale Road at Bridgewood Way Signal 59.3 E 214.4 F 59.1 E 215.8 F 59.8 E 215.0 F 1308 Oakdale Road at Claratina Avenue Signal 143.4 F 177.3 F 143.5 F 179.5 F 143.5 F 177.3 F 2287 Oakdale Road at Mable Avenue Signal 10.9 B 45.6 D 10.8 B 45.1 D 10.9 B 45.2 D 2921 Oakdale Road at RSC-1 W. Driveway 2 Unsignalized 1907 Oakdale Road at Sylvan Avenue Signal 107.5 F 188.5 F 106.8 F 189.9 F 108.0 F 188.9 F 4340 Oakdale Road at Tivoli E Unsignalized 4300 Oakdale Road RSC-1 W. Driveway 1 Unsignalized 1489 Roselle Avenue at Claratina Avenue Roundabout 2.3 A 2.9 A 2.3 A 2.8 A 2.3 A 2.9 A 4602 Roselle Avenue and HDR-2 Driveway Unsignalized EB Right 10.7 B 17.1 C 10.5 B 16.4 C 10.7 B 17.4 C 1244 Roselle Avenue at NC-1 E. Driveway Unsignalized EB Right 9.9 A 20.0 C 9.9 A 19.4 C 9.9 A 19.8 C 1908 Roselle Avenue at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 8.3 A 21.6 C 8.3 A 21.4 C 8.3 A 22.5 C 1243 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli C Roundabout 32.7 D 432.3 F 31.3 D 330.7 F 34.2 D 500.8 F 3220 Roselle Avenue at Tivoli D Roundabout 14.8 B 59.4 F 14.3 B 59.5 F 15.4 C 63.0 F 4298 RSC-1 Driveway 1 at Claratina Avenue Unsignalized NB Right 10.6 B 31.9 D 10.6 B 30.9 D 10.6 B 31.3 D 1492 RSC-1 Driveway 2 at Claratina Avenue Signal 19.0 B 32.1 C 18.9 B 32.1 C 19.0 B 31.8 C 4299 RSC-1 Driveway 3/Claratina Unsignalized NB Right 10.1 B 20.3 C 10.1 B 20.0 C 10.1 B 20.2 C 3927 Wood Sorrell Drive at Sylvan Avenue Roundabout 3.6 A 5.4 A 3.6 A 5.7 A 3.6 A 5.5 A 3348 Tivoli Road A at Claratina Avenue Signal 33.1 C 31.5 C 33.2 C 31.4 C 33.1 C 31.5 C 4292 Tivoli Road B at Claratina Avenue Signal 15.3 B 8.9 A 17.2 B 10.2 B 15.2 B 8.9 A 4069 W. NC-3 Driveway at Oakdale Road Unsignalized EB Left 2442.0 F >9999 F 2433.0 F >9999 F 2459.0 F >9999 F WB Right 16.8 C 17.1 C 16.7 C 17.1 C 16.8 C 17.2 C Shaded Values discussed in body of memo ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX E: TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN BIOTIC STUDY ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 i TIVOLI SPECIFIC PLAN BIOTIC STUDY Prepared by: H. T. Harvey & Associates Patrick Boursier, Ph.D., Principal-in-Charge Brian B. Boroski, Ph.D., Project Manager Daniel G. Duke, J.D., Assistant Project Manager Brian J. Cleary, M.S., Botanist John C. Sterling, B.A., Wildlife Ecologist Prepared for: Turnstone Consulting 330 Townsend Street, Suite 216 San Francisco, CA 94107 November 21, 2005 Project No. 2512-01 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PROJECT 1 GENERAL PROJECT SITE 1 BIOTIC BIOTIC HABITATS 2 BIOTIC HABITATS AND EXISTING 3 3 DRY-FARMED FORAGE 4 DISKED 4 IRRIGATED PASTURE 5 ARTIFICIAL 6 6 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES REGULATIONS 7 SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES 8 SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES 9 REGULATED UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 16 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 17 LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CITY OF MODESTO MUNICPICAL CODE (STREET TREES) 18 ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA 19 IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT 19 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LESS-THAN- SIGNIFICANT 21 CUMULATIVE 26 INDIRECT 27 UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE 27 LITERATURE APPENDIX A. Special-Status Plant and Wildlife Species Considered but Rejected for Occurrence at the Project Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 i ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLES Table 1 Summary of Biotic Habitats Present on the Tivoli Project Table 2 Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence at the Tivoli Project FIGURES Follows Page: Figure 1. Project Site Vicinity Figure 2. Project Site Detail / Biotic Habitat Figure 3. Swainson’s Hawk Records in the Project Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 ii ---PAGE BREAK--- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Tivoli Specific Plan project owner representative, David Romano, has proposed the construction of a two-phase development on approximately 472 acres1 (191 ha) in Modesto, California. The project site is bounded by Oakdale Avenue to the west, Sylvan Avenue to the south, Roselle Avenue to the east, and adjacent agricultural lands to the north. Construction activities will include residential and commercial development, a school, and three parks. GENERAL PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The City of Modesto is situated at an elevation of approximately 110 ft (33.5 m) in the San Joaquin Valley region of the Central Valley. Historically, the San Joaquin Valley consisted largely of floodplains, alluvial fans, and fan terraces formed from alluvial materials washed down from the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The climate of the San Joaquin Valley is characterized by hot, dry summers, and cool, moist winters with frequent heavy fog. Weather patterns in the Valley result from the presence of the Coast Range to the west and the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east. Overall, the Coast Range produces a rain-shadow effect, with the majority of moisture falling on the coastal side of the mountains. During the winter months, however, offshore high-pressure areas move south along the coast, allowing the San Joaquin Valley to receive the majority (90 percent) of its annual precipitation (Soil Conservation Service 1997). The average annual precipitation in Modesto ranges from 10 inches to 12 inches (25.4 to 30.5 cm). The Sierra Nevada Range moderates the winter climate in the Valley by shielding the area from continental climatic extremes. The average annual temperature for the Modesto area is 61° Fahrenheit (16° Celsius). The Tivoli project site is located in the northeast portion of Modesto, Stanislaus County California (Figure The project site is situated on nearly-level floodplains comprising deep, fertile soils. The project site is underlain by five soil series consisting of moderately fine- textured to fine-textured clays, loams, and sands. The following soils series occur on the project site: Handford, Dinuba, Modesto, Madera, and Meikle. The majority of land within the project site is cultivated and used for annual grain production, including barley and oat hay. Large tracts of orchard and vineyard also occur on the project site. 1 Exact acreage should be verified by engineering surveys. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- &ILE .O $ATE &IGURE 4IVOLI 3PECIFIC 0LAN "IOTIC 3TUDY 3ITE 6ICINITY -AP FEET APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET -AP #OPYRIGHTED BY THE #ALIFORNIA 3TATE !UTOMOBILE !SSOCIATION 2EPRODUCED BY PERMISSION . $ETAIL #ALIFORNIA 0ROJECT 3ITE ---PAGE BREAK--- BIOTIC SURVEYS Reconnaissance-level field surveys of the project site were conducted on May 5, 11, and 12, 2005. The purpose of these surveys was to document biotic resources on the site that may pose constraints to the proposed development. Specifically, surveys were conducted to: 1) describe existing biotic habitats; 2) assess the site for its potential to support special-status species and their habitats; and 3) identify potential jurisdictional habitats, including Waters of the U.S., riparian habitat, and ordinance trees. BIOTIC HABITATS Surveys for botanically sensitive habitats were conducted concurrently with special-status plant surveys. The project site is primarily characterized by agricultural habitat types, including orchards, vineyards, forage crops, disked and irrigated pastures, freshwater marshes (man-made), and urban areas (Table The project site also includes numerous irrigation ditches with flood- control valves that connect to subsurface irrigation lines. These biotic habitats, and associated vegetation and wildlife, are described in further detail below. Plant communities were described in terms of dominant tree, shrub, and herbaceous vegetation composition and, when possible, classified according to the nomenclature of Holland (1986), and Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995). Figure 2 depicts the distribution of these habitats and land use types within the project site. Table 1. Summary of Biotic Habitats and Land Use Types on the Tivoli Project Site. Biotic Habitat / Land Use Approximate Acreage1 Percent of Total Agricultural / Orchard 28 5.9 Agricultural / Vineyard 42 8.9 Agricultural / Forage Crop 141 30.0 Agricultural / Disked 106 22.6 Irrigated Pasture 51 10.8 Freshwater Marsh (Man- induced) 3 0.6 Urban Area 98 20.8 Total 469 100% 1 – Exact acreages should be verified by engineering surveys. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Oakdale Road Oakdale Road Sylvan Ave Sylvan Ave Roselle Ave Roselle Ave Agricultural Irrigation Ditch Agricultural Irrigation Ditch 0 450 900 Feet 2512-01 Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study: Habitat Map 11/21/05 2 Biotic Habitats Project Boundary Agricultural / Orchard Agricultural / Vineyard Agricultural / Forage Crop Agricultural / Disked Irrigated Pasture Freshwater Marsh (Man-induced) Developed Area Background: USGS DOQQ Aerial 5/9/93 ---PAGE BREAK--- BIOTIC HABITATS AND EXISTING FACILITIES ORCHARD Vegetation Deciduous and evergreen orchards occupy approximately 28 acres (11.3 ha), or approximately six percent, of the project site. These orchards are located east of Oakdale Road, in the northwestern portion of the site, and in the southwest portion north of Sylvan Road (Figure These orchards support scattered patches of ruderal (herbaceous, non-native) plants, including: rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), Mediterranean barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. gussoneanum), black mustard (Brassica nigra), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), filaree (Erodium sp.), soft chess brome (Bromus hordeaceus), fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora) and shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris). These plant species grow below the tree canopy and along the access roads around the perimeter of the orchards. However, the majority of orchard habitat is devoid of vegetation, due to weed control and crop production activities. Wildlife Orchards typically provide limited habitats for wildlife, as frequent disturbances associated with crop production pruning, spraying, harvesting, and watering) limit the potential for most wildlife species to persist in these habitats. Common reptiles such as the side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana) are known to persist under these conditions, and some common bird species are attracted to nut crops and can be abundant in orchards, such as the American Crow (Corvus and Yellow-billed Magpie (Pica nuttalli). Burrowing animals, such as California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) and gophers (Thomomys sp.), are typically discouraged in orchards due to damage they cause to crops and irrigation systems. VINEYARD Vegetation Vineyards occupy approximately 42 acres (17 ha), or approximately 9 percent of the project site. These vineyards are located on the east side of Oakdale Road in the northwestern portion of the site (Figure Vineyards, as with orchards, support a variety of ruderal plant species as mentioned above. Wildlife Vineyards provide limited habitats for wildlife, as the frequent disturbances associated with crop production limit the potential for most wildlife species to persist in vineyards. Common animals such as the side-blotched lizard can persist under these conditions. Some birds, such as American Crows and Western Scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica), are attracted to fruit crops and can be quite abundant. Burrowing animals such as California ground squirrels and gophers Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- (Thomomys sp.) are normally actively discouraged because of the damage these animals can cause to vines and irrigation systems. DRY-FARMED FORAGE CROP Vegetation Dry-farmed forage crops, consisting primarily of barley and oat hay, encompass approximately 141 acres (57.1 ha), or approximately 30 percent, of the project site (Figure Several large barley fields occur in the central and northeast portions of the project site west of Roselle Avenue. Additional tracts of oat hay occur in the south-central and southeast portions of the project site adjacent to Sylvan Avenue and Oakdale Avenue. Wildlife The dryland agriculture habitats of the sites provide wildlife habitat similar to that found in non- native grassland described below. The periodic disking of agricultural areas on the site disrupts burrows and other refugia for reptiles, rodents, and other small animals. Efficient burrowers such as California ground squirrels are capable of recolonizing these habitats after the disturbance has passed. These colonizations are usually limited to the peripheries of the fields. Dry-farmed forage crops can provide an abundant food supply for flocks of Mourning Doves (Zenaida macroura), Brewer’s and Red-winged blackbirds (Euphagus cyanocephalus and Agelaius phoeniceus, respectively), and House Finches (Carpodacus mexicanus). DISKED FIELD Vegetation Approximately 106 acres (42.9 ha), or approximately 22 percent of the project site comprises disked agricultural fields (Figure Several large, freshly-disked fields, in the south-central and north-central portions of the site, are completely devoid of vegetation. One row of approximately 20 narrow-leaved willow (Salix exigua) shrubs associated with a minor irrigation ditch occurs adjacent to the north side of a disked field along the north-central boundary of the project site (see Figure Although these shrubs form dense and continuous vegetative cover for approximately 200 linear feet, they represent an isolated stand of non-riparian vegetation that is not associated with native hydrology natural creeks, streams, or drainages). Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Wildlife Cultivated fields provide limited habitat for wildlife due to their disturbed nature. The frequent plowing for cultivation and weed-control activities disrupt burrows and ground cover for terrestrial mammals. Species that use cultivated habitats are generally widespread species accustomed to disturbances, such as: American Kestrels (Falco sparverius), American Crows, Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), Mourning Doves, Western Meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta), Brewer’s Blackbirds, and House Finches. Species such as Swainson’s Hawks, Snowy and Great egrets (Egretta thula and Ardea alba, respectively), Turkey Vultures (Cathartes aura), and other avian generalist predators forage preferentially in some cultivated fields during tilling as insects, small mammals, and other prey organisms are uncovered and highly vulnerable to predation. IRRIGATED PASTURE Vegetation Irrigated pasture occupies approximately 51 acres (20.6 ha), or approximately 10 percent of the project site. This habitat occurs primarily in the southeast portion of the project site adjacent to Roselle Avenue (Figure A series of open irrigation ditches connected to subsurface irrigation lines are used along field margins to flood the pastures (Figure Irrigated pasture is dominated by annual and perennial non-native grasses and forbs commonly grown for forage, including: Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), rabbits foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), white sweetclover (Melilotus alba), white clover (Trifolium repens), and filaree. Some areas of irrigated pastures occupy low-lying topographic depressions on the site have been saturated for long periods of time and support water-loving plant species indicative of seasonal freshwater wetlands habitat. Plant species observed in these areas included: buttercup (Ranunculus muricatus), water primrose (Ludwigia peploides), hyssop loosestrife hyssopifolium), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), knotweed (Polygonum sp.), nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and toad rush (Juncus bufonius). Two linear stands of well-established Eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus spp.) occur just offsite in the north- central portion of the project site adjacent to a field of irrigated pasture. Wildlife Bird species typically found in pastures is the Modesto area include Mallard (Anas Killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), Western Kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), Western Meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and Red-winged Blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- ARTIFICIAL WETLAND Vegetation Three areas of man-made, freshwater-marsh habitat exist on the site as a result of the flood irrigation practices. These areas are located within, and adjacent to, two irrigation ditches in the central portion of the site and occupy approximately 3 acres (1.2 ha), or less than 1 percent of the project site (see Figure Two of the areas are dominated by tule (Scirpus acutus var. occidentalis) and knotweed, and are located in low-lying, topographic depressions adjacent to the east side of the primary irrigation ditch bisecting the north-central portion of the project site. The third patch consists of a dense stand of cattail (Typha sp.) within a secondary irrigation ditch located along the north-central boundary of the project site. These patches of freshwater marsh habitat would die off if the flood irrigation practices on the project site were stopped. Wildlife Wildlife species that may use the freshwater habitat on the site include exotic bullfrogs (Rana catesbieana), Great Egret, Snowy Egret, Common Moorhen (Gallinula chloropus), American Coot (Fulica americana), Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris), Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia), and Tricolored and Red-winged blackbirds. URBAN Vegetation Approximately 101 acres (40.9 ha), or approximately 21 percent of the project site are comprised of developed urban areas. These areas include houses along Mable in the west-central region of the project site, commercial developments and residential subdivisions along Oakdale Road and Sylvan Avenue, and numerous, rural, residential homes and ranchettes throughout the project site. Many of the ruderal plant species previously listed above occur around these developments, in addition to a wide variety of native and ornamental trees, including: coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Northern California black walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii), Eucalyptus, and a host of orchard tree varieties. Wildlife Homesteads and suburban landscapes typically provide habitat for common species accustomed to human disturbance. Common backyard birds likely to be present at these sites include Western Scrub-Jays (Aphelocoma californica), American Robins (Turdus migratorius), Northern Mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), Hooded Orioles (Icterus cucullatus), House Finches, and House Sparrows (Passer domesticus). Western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis) and desert cottontails (Sylvilagus audobonii) may be present in the vicinity of wood or brush piles. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES REGULATIONS OVERVIEW Federal and state endangered species legislation gives special status to several plant and animal species known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. In addition, state resource agencies and professional organizations, whose lists are recognized by agencies when reviewing environmental documents, have identified as sensitive some species occurring in the vicinity of the project site. Such species are referred to collectively as “species of special status” and include plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals listed as “fully protected” under the California Fish and Game Code; animals designated as “Species of Special Concern” by the CDFG; and plants listed as rare or endangered by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) in the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2001). ESA provisions protect federally listed threatened and endangered species and their habitats from unlawful take. Under the ESA, “take” is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of the specifically enumerated conduct.” The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) regulations define harm to mean “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife.” Such an act “may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding or sheltering” (50 CFR § 17.3). Activities that may result in “take” of individuals are regulated by the USFWS. The USFWS produced an updated list of candidate species May 11, 2005 (50 CFR Part 17). Candidate species are not afforded any legal protection under ESA; however, candidate species typically receive special attention from federal and state agencies during the environmental review process. Provisions of CESA protect state-listed threatened and endangered species. CDFG regulates activities that may result in “take” of individuals “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of “take” under the California Fish and Game Code. Additionally, the California Fish and Game Code contains lists of vertebrate species designated as “fully protected” (California Fish & Game Code 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], 5050 [reptiles and amphibians], 5515 [fish]). Such species may not be taken or possessed. In addition to federal and state-listed species, the CDFG also has produced a list of Species of Special Concern to serve as a “watch list.” Species on this list are of limited distribution or the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations may be imminent. Species of Special Concern may receive special attention during environmental review, but they do not have statutory protection. USFWS also uses the label, Species of Concern, as an informal term that refers to those species that might be in need of concentrated conservation actions. Species of Concern receive no legal protection as a result of their designation as Species of Special Concern, and the use of the term does not necessarily mean Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a threatened or endangered species. However, most, if not all, of these species are currently protected by state and federal laws. Raptors eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected under both federal and state regulations. The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act2 (MBTA) prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Birds of prey are protected in California under the State Fish and Game Code.3 Section 3503.5 states it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by the CDFG. Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS, but which might not have designated status under federal or state endangered species legislation, are defined as follows: List 1A Plants considered by the CNPS to be extinct in California. List 1BPlants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere. List 3Plants about which we need more information – a review list. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES A survey was conducted on May 11, 2005 for habitats capable of supporting special-status plant species. Prior to the site surveys, information concerning the known distribution of threatened, endangered, or other special-status plant species with potential to occur in the project vicinity was collected from several sources and reviewed. The sources included the CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database 2005) and information available through the USFWS, CDFG, and technical publications. The CNPS’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2001) and The Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993) supplied information regarding the distribution and habitats of vascular plants in the vicinity. A query of special-status plants in the was first performed for the USGS Riverbank topographical quadrangle map in which the project site occurs, as well as the eight quadrangles surrounding the project site. The CNPS Inventory was then queried to produce a similar list for Stanislaus County. The specific habitats included in the query were vernal pools, native coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and valley and foothill grassland communities, including areas with suitable microhabitats. In addition, (2005) identified vernal pools and coastal valley and freshwater marsh as sensitive habitats. These habitats were chosen based on the similarity of their constituent species to those occurring on the project site. The habitat requirements of each 2 16 U.S.C., Sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989. 3 Section 3503.5, 1992. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- special-status plant species were the principal criteria used for inclusion in the list of species potentially occurring on site. All special-status plant species located within the nine-quadrangle search area in Stanislaus County require habitat types not present on the project site, including vernal pools, native coastal and valley freshwater marsh, and valley and foothill grassland communities. Nine special-status plant species were analyzed for rarity. These species include: lesser saltscale (Atriplex minuscule), beaked clarkia (Clarkia rostrata), round-leaved filaree (Erodium Delta button-celery (Eryngium racemosum), legenere (Legenere limosa), Colusa grass (Neostapfia colusana), San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass (Orcuttia inaequalis), hairy orcutt grass (Orcuttia pilosa), and Green’s tuctoria (Tuctoria greenei). None of these species were identified as potentially occurring on the project site, nor were they identified during the field survey. As stated above, these nine species occur in habitats not found at the project site. Lesser saltscale, beaked clarkia, and round-leaved filaree are found in valley and foothill grassland, and oak woodland communities, whereas Delta button celery occurs in coastal and valley freshwater marsh community. Although small discontinuous patches of ruderal, non-native, annual grassland occur on site and are associated with the margins of orchards, vineyards, agricultural fields, and irrigation drainage ditches, these areas are highly disturbed, degraded and dominated by non-native grasses and forbs, and thus are not capable of supporting rare plants that grow in valley and foothill grassland habitat. In addition, the three small patches of man-induced freshwater wetlands on the site show some floristic resemblance to coastal and valley freshwater marsh community; however, these areas are too small and disturbed to support Delta button- celery. The remaining potential, special-status, plant species (legenere, Colusa grass, San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass, hairy orcutt grass, and Green’s tuctoria) are found only in vernal pool habitat, which does not occur on the site. Therefore, all nine special-status plants analyzed were rejected from consideration due to the degraded nature of habitat on the site, the lack of associated native species, and/or the absence of specific habitat variables (Appendix No additional surveys are warranted for these plants on the Tivoli Project site. SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES Surveys were conducted on the project site for habitats capable of supporting special-status wildlife species. Prior to the site surveys, information concerning the known distribution of threatened, endangered, or other special-status and significant wildlife species with potential to occur in the area was collected from several sources and reviewed. The sources included the CDFG’s Natural Diversity Database 2005) and information available through the USFWS, CDFG, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, and California Academy of Sciences. Jennings and Hayes’ (1994) Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California provided additional information regarding the distribution and habitats of California Species of Special Concern in the vicinity. The was queried for occurrences of special-status wildlife species within the USGS Riverbank topographical quadrangle map in which the project site occurs and the eight Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- surrounding quadrangles. The specific habitat requirements and the locations of known occurrences of each special-status wildlife species were the principal criteria used for inclusion in the list of species potentially occurring on site. The special-status wildlife species that occur locally in habitats similar to those found on the project site are described below. The legal status and likelihood of occurrence of these species on site are given in Table 2. Expanded descriptions are included for those species for which suitable breeding habitat is available, where specific surveys were conducted, or where the resource agencies have expressed particular concern. Eighteen species were rejected from consideration due to lack of suitable habitat conditions or elements. The special-status wildlife species considered but rejected for occurrence are listed in Appendix A. Federal or State Endangered or Threatened Species Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). Federal Status: None; State Status: Threatened. The Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) is a large soaring bird of open habitats. It has a wingspan of approximately four feet and, as with most birds of prey, the female is larger than the male. The coloration is highly variable and varies from light to rufous to entirely dark in color. Swainson’s Hawks are most easily distinguished from other members of its genus, such as the familiar Red-tailed Hawk jamaicensis), by a relatively slender body, and narrow, pointed, and upturned wings. Swainson’s Hawks were once one of the most common birds of prey in the grasslands of California. Populations have declined at least 90 percent since 1990, and are still believed to be declining (Thelander 1994). They once nested in the majority of the lowland areas in the state. Currently, the nesting range is primarily restricted to portions of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys and northeast California (Bloom 1980). It was listed as Threatened by the State of California in 1983. Swainson’s Hawks require large amounts of foraging habitat, preferably grassland or pasture habitats. Their preferred prey items are voles (Microtus sp), gophers, birds, and insects such as grasshoppers (Estep 1989). They have also adapted to some croplands, particularly alfalfa, but also forage in hay, grain, tomatoes, beets, and other row crops (Estep 1989). Crops such as cotton, corn, rice, orchards, and vineyards are not suitable since they either lack suitable prey or the prey is unavailable due to the crop structure. In the Central Valley, Swainson’s Hawks are generally tied to riparian habitat for nesting sites (Bloom 1980). A few pairs nesting in Tulare and Kings County utilize eucalyptus trees and nest outside riparian areas 2005). In the fall, Swainson’s Hawks form flocks called kettles, sometimes in large numbers, and migrate together to South America. Kettles can occasionally be seen in the valley foraging behind tractors or harvesters, hunting mice and insects that have been displaced by the activities. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 2. Special-status Plant and Wildlife Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence at the Tivoli Project Site. NAME STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE ON-SITE Federal or State Endangered or Threatened Species Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni ST Breeds in stands with few trees in riparian areas, oak savannah, and sometimes in suburban settings such as Davis. Forages in adjacent grassland, pasture, and appropriate agricultural fields. Present: A Swainson’s Hawk was observed foraging on the site during the field survey. Past breeding documented in the within 10 miles of project site. California Species of Special Concern Western spadefoot Scaphiopus hammondii CSSC Grasslands and occasionally valley-foothill hardwood woodlands; vernal pools or similar ephemeral pools required for breeding. Presumed absent: Vernal pools or similar ephemeral pools absent and terrestrial habitat degraded. Not observed during site surveys. Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus CSSC Forages in marshes, grasslands, and ruderal habitats. Nests in extensive marshes and wet fields. May forage on the site: Habitat on the project site is too fragmented to provide adequate nesting habitat. Not observed during site surveys. White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus SP Nests in tall shrubs and trees, forages in grasslands, agricultural fields, and marshes. Present: Two individuals were observed north of the project site on adjacent orchard property during site survey. Suitable breeding and foraging habitat occurs within the project site. Merlin Falco columbarius CSSC Uses many habitats in winter and migration. Presumed absent: Species does not breed in California. Project site provides limited foraging habitat. Not observed during site surveys. Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus CSSC Breeds in dense vegetation in open grassland and marshes. Presumed absent: Not observed during site surveys. May occasionally forage in area during the winter; however, nesting habitat on project site is too fragmented to be suitable. Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia hypugea CSSC Grasslands and ruderal habitats. Present: One adult Burrowing Owl and occupied burrow were observed during the site survey. Project site contains suitable breeding and foraging habitat. Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus CSSC Nests in tall shrubs and dense trees, forages in grasslands, marshes, and ruderal habitats. Present: One individual observed during site survey. Suitable breeding and foraging habitat occurs on the project site. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- NAME STATUS* HABITAT POTENTIAL FOR OCCURRENCE ON-SITE Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor CSSC Breeds near fresh water in dense emergent vegetation; blackberry brambles, thistle patches, some agricultural crops such as alfalfa and safflower; breeds within vicinity of foraging habitat, i.e. row crops, pasture, annual grasslands May occur: Suitable foraging and breeding habitat occurs on the project site. Not observed during the site survey. *LISTING STATUS FE = Federally listed Endangered FT = Federally listed Threatened FD = Federally delisted FC = Federal Candidate. Sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list the species as Endangered or Threatened SE = State listed Endangered ST State listed Threatened CSSC = California Species of Special Concern SP = State Protected Species CNPS 1B = Plants considered by CNPS to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California, and elsewhere CNPS 2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere CNPS 3 = Plants about which we need more information - A review list. CNPS 4 = Plants of limited distribution Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- The (2005) contains four records of Swainson’s Hawks within ten miles of the project site and two within five miles of the project site (Figure The most recent of these records was recorded in 1999; however more recent, unrecorded, nesting activity is highly probable in the vicinity of the project site because suitable nesting and foraging habitat has been maintained. No Swainson’s Hawks were observed nesting on the project site during the field survey, but a Swainson’s Hawk was observed foraging on the site. California Species of Special Concern and State Protected Species White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus). Federal Status: None; State Status: Fully Protected Species. The White-tailed Kite prefers open habitats including grasslands, agricultural row crops, hayfields, pastures, and savanna. Kite nests are built near the tops of oaks, willows, or other dense broad-leafed deciduous trees in partially cleared or cultivated fields, grassy foothills, marsh, riparian, woodland, urban/suburban parks and gardens, and savannah. Kites prey primarily on small rodents (especially California voles), but also small birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians. Once considered endangered, the White-tailed Kite is now fairly common. A pair of White-tailed Kites was observed exhibiting courtship behavior immediately north of the project site in an adjacent agricultural (orchard) property. There are numerous trees that provide nesting habitat, and these are primarily clustered around the residential areas. Kites may forage in all of the open agricultural fields and pastures on the project site. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus). Federal Status: None; State Status: Species of Special Concern (nesting). The Northern Harrier is commonly found in open grasslands, agricultural areas, and marshes. Nests are built on the ground in areas where tall grasses or marsh plants provide cover and protection. Harriers hunt for a variety of prey, including rodents, birds, frogs, reptiles, and insects by flying low and slow in a traversing manner utilizing both sight and sound to detect prey items. Northern Harriers are common in the Central Valley, especially during winter. Harriers may forage in all of the open agricultural fields and pastures on the project site, especially during the winter when local populations are augmented by an influx of migrants from other regions. Harriers nest in grasslands, fallow fields and marshes within large, open landscapes. They are unlikely to nest on the project site because these habitats on the site are fragmented and isolated from other suitable habitat by orchards, vineyards, and suburban/urban areas. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 99 Modesto Salida Oakdale K Riverbank Del Rio Empire Escalon Waterford Hughson 108 120 Swainson's hawk Swainson's hawk Swainson's hawk Swainson's hawk Swainson's hawk Stanislaus San Joaquin Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study: Swainson's Hawk Locations 2512-01 11/21/05 3 Legend Swainson's Hawk Location (Approximate) Project Location 10-m ile ra dius 10-m ile ra dius 0 2 4 Miles ---PAGE BREAK--- Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The Burrowing Owl is a small, terrestrial owl of open country. Burrowing Owls favor flat, open grassland or gentle slopes, and sparse shrubland ecosystems. In California, Burrowing Owls are found in close association with California ground squirrels. Owls use ground squirrel burrows for shelter and nesting. One adult owl was observed on the project site in the vicinity of a burrow showing evidence of prior usage by Burrowing Owls pellets, whitewash). Habitat characteristics on site are favorable for Burrowing Owls as they will forage in the open agricultural fields and pasturelands that dominate the project area. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Federal listing status: None; State listing status: Species of Special Concern. This predatory songbird inhabits much of the lower 48 states. Loggerhead Shrikes prefer open habitats interspersed with shrubs, trees, poles, fences, or other perches from which they can hunt. Loggerhead Shrike populations have declined significantly over the last 20 years, primarily in the eastern and Midwestern states. Even with this trend, Loggerhead Shrikes are still considered a fairly common species in California. Loggerhead Shrikes are primarily monogamous and are very territorial throughout the year. Nests are built in densely-vegetated shrubs or trees, often containing thorns, which offer protection from predators and upon which prey items are impaled. They breed between early February and late March with the peak of breeding between mid- March and late June. One shrike was observed on the project site during site surveys. Furthermore, the project site contains suitable breeding and foraging habitat. Shrikes may breed in isolated shrubs and small trees interspersed in the agricultural landscape and additionally in the suburban/rural gardens and yards abutting pastures and fields. The agricultural fields, pasturelands and adjacent residential areas in the project area provide suitable foraging habitat for shrikes. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Federal listing status: None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. Tricolored Blackbirds are found almost exclusively in the Central Valley, and central and southern coastal areas of California. In 1992, surveys by the California Department of Fish and Game determined that the population of this species was much larger than previously believed. Thus, the concern for the species lessened considerably. The Tricolored Blackbird is highly colonial in its nesting habits and forms dense breeding colonies of up to tens of thousands of pairs. This species typically nests primarily in tall, dense, stands of cattails or tules, but also nests in blackberry brambles, thistle, alfalfa, wild rose bushes, and tall herbs. Nesting colonies are typically located near standing or flowing freshwater in the vicinity of foraging habitat such as; row crops, hay fields, pastures, grasslands, and dairy Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- feedlots. Tricolored Blackbirds form large, often multi-species, flocks during the non-breeding period and range more widely than during the reproductive season. The project site contains suitable breeding and foraging habitat. Breeding habitat includes the emergent marsh vegetation along the canal at the northern end of the property. Tricolored Blackbirds may forage in all of the agricultural fields and pasturelands in the project area. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- REGULATED HABITATS UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS JURISDICTION Regulatory Overview Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (1972) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899). These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the tributaries of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special Aquatic Sites) adjacent to “Waters of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3). Wetlands on non-agricultural lands are identified using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The State Water Resources Control Board is the state agency (together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards) charged with implementing water quality certification in California. Survey Results Reconnaissance-level field surveys on the project site for jurisdictional waters revealed a series of irrigation ditches that drain into associated freshwater marsh habitat in the north-central portion of the site. The project site also contains irrigation ditches and associated small patches of seasonal wetlands in irrigated pasture in the southeast portion of the site. The survey results have determined that the water in these ditches originates from the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) Lateral Number 6 Canal, which ties into the Modesto Main Canal located north of the site on the north side of Claribel Road. For clarification, each of these concrete-lined canals are artificially created and maintained, and have been excavated on dry land for the sole purpose of conveying irrigation water to surrounding farmlands, including the irrigation ditches and subsurface lines on site. One of the primary considerations used by the regulatory staff of the Sacramento District of the USACE in determining their jurisdiction in such surface drainage features is whether or not water that is diverted from a regulated jurisdictional waters, eventually flows back into another jurisdictional waters. Based on a review of site conditions and the alignment of these features shown on a recent USGS quadrangle map (Riverbank), water contained within the drainages that cross the site do not appear to drain back into a water of the U.S. As such, it is our determination that the canals and ditches do not meet the regulatory definition of “Waters of the Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- Although the freshwater marsh and seasonal wetlands habitat on the project site exhibit wetland characteristics, these patches of vegetation are essentially irrigated wetlands (man-induced wetlands), sustained entirely by artificial irrigation and thus are not considered “Waters of the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME JURISDICTION Regulatory Overview The CDFG potentially extends the definition of stream to include “intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams (USGS), and watercourses with subsurface flows. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream- dependent terrestrial wildlife” (CDFG 1994a). Such areas on the site were determined using methodology described in A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607 (CDFG 1994a). Activities that result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream, or which substantially change its bed, channel or bank, or which utilize any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed, may require that the project applicant enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFG. Survey Results Field surveys were also conducted within the Tivoli Project site for drainages, streams and other waterways potentially under the regulatory jurisdiction of the CDFG. Aquatic fish and wildlife life, and stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife are not dependent on the irrigation ditches, including the minor irrigation ditch in the northern portion of the site containing a small isolated stand of willow. Thus, based on conditions present at the site, it is our determination that activities conducted within the irrigation ditches on the project site are not regulated by CDFG. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 17 ---PAGE BREAK--- LOCAL REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS CITY OF MODESTO MUNICPICAL CODE (STREET TREES) The City of Modesto Title 7 Tree Ordinance and Regulations, Section 7-5.05 “Removal, Maintenance and Protection of Trees”, states, “The Public Works Director shall be responsible for inspection, maintenance, removal and replacement of street trees planted within rights-of- way or easements. The Public Works Director may cause street trees or other plant material planted in a right-of-way or easement to be removed by the City if they are deemed by the Public Works Director to be unhealthy, hazardous, undesirable or causing excessive damage to existing public improvements, or street trees”. Section 7-5.06 “Protection” states that no person shall “remove, trim, prune, spray or cut any above- or below- ground portions of any street tree in a right-of-way or easement without first obtaining permission from the Public Works Director The Public Works Director shall determine whether or not a tree is required to be retained in order to preserve the intent and purpose of the City of Modesto Street Tree Plan. Municipal Code Compliance Numerous street trees exist within right-of-way easements on site or in the immediate vicinity. These trees are likely within the jurisdiction of the City of Modesto tree ordinance and regulations. Therefore, depending on the specific location of construction activities, a tree removal permit may be required from the City of Modesto Public Works Director prior to cutting or removing any street tree. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 18 ---PAGE BREAK--- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The proposed project will have a number of effects on the biological resources of the project site. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines “significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code, §21068). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15065, a project's effects on biotic resources are deemed significant where the project would: substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, and/or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. In addition to the Section 15065 criteria, Appendix G within the CEQA Guidelines lists other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the effects of a project. The following are applicable to the assessment of impacts stemming from the proposed project: Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS? Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preserve policy or ordinance? IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT Loss of Agricultural and Urban Habitats Orchards, vineyards, and urban habitats predominately support common plant and wildlife species. Loss of these habitats would not result in significant impacts to biological resources. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dry-farmed forage crops, disked fields, and irrigated pastures are not sensitive habitats. Therefore, loss of these habitats, in and of themselves, would not constitute a significant impact. Swainson’s Hawks, White-tailed Kites, Northern Harriers, Burrowing Owls, Tricolored Blackbirds, and Loggerhead Shrikes may forage within these habitats. Potential impacts to these species resulting from the loss of foraging habitat comprising dry-farmed forage crops, disked fields, and irrigated pastures are discussed separately. Loss of Artificial Wetland Habitat The proposed project will remove the surface and subsurface agricultural irrigation ditches and water-conveyance structures on the site, and eliminate the artificial wetlands sustained by current irrigation practices. Loss of these artificial wetlands would not constitute a significant impact. Small, isolated, artificial wetlands are not a sensitive habitat and similar patches of small, isolated, wetlands associated with agricultural operations are regionally abundant. Loss of Foraging Habitat for White-tailed Kites and Northern Harriers Dry-farmed forage crops, disked fields, and irrigated pastures within which White-tailed Kites or Northern Harriers may forage are regionally abundant. Project implementation will not substantially reduce the foraging habitat available for these species, restrict their range, or cause their regional populations to drop below a self-sustaining level. Therefore, impacts to these species stemming from a loss of foraging habitat would be less than significant. Loss of Breeding and Foraging Habitat for Tricolored Blackbirds and Loggerhead Shrikes Although not observed during field surveys, Tricolored Blackbirds could nest on the site within the emergent vegetation associated with the artificial wetlands and forage within the irrigated pastures. A Loggerhead Shrike was observed during field surveys and shrikes are expected to forage within the agricultural habitats and may nest within isolated shrubs and small trees interspersed in the agricultural landscape and in the rural gardens and yards abutting pastures and fields. Similar potential breeding and foraging habitat for Tricolored Blackbirds and Loggerhead Shrikes associated with agricultural operations and urban areas is regionally abundant. Therefore, impacts to these species would be less than significant. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LESS-THAN- SIGNIFICANT LEVEL Loss of Swainson’s Hawk Foraging Habitat Swainson’s Hawks were not observed nesting on the project site. However, the site does contain suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks and one was observed foraging on the site during a field survey. Preferred foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks includes: dry-land and irrigated pasture, alfalfa, fallow fields, low-growing row or field crops, rice land, and cereal grain crops (CDFG 1994b). The project site includes approximately 141 acres (57.1 ha) of forage crops consisting primarily of cereal grain, 106 acres (42.9 ha) of agricultural/disked lands, and 51 acres (20.6 ha) of irrigated pasture that may serve as foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks. Project implementation would result in the loss of approximately 298 acres (121 ha) of foraging habitat, resulting in a significant adverse effect to this state-threatened species through habitat modification. CDFG considers the loss of foraging habitat in the Modesto region as significant under CEQA because of the cumulative loss of Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat throughout the San Joaquin Valley. The loss of habitat results in a restriction in the range and reduction in numbers of this state threatened species. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impact on this species to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation 1. Pre-construction surveys. In order to assure that nesting Swainson’s Hawks will not be disturbed by construction activities, a qualified ornithologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys of the project site and adjacent areas within one mile of the project site. Survey Period I occurs from January 1 to March 20, Period II from March 20 to April 5, Period III from April 5 to April 20, Period IV from April 21 to June 10 (surveys not recommend during this period because identification is difficult because the adults tend to remain within the nest for longer periods of time), and Period V from June 10 to July 30. No fewer than three surveys shall be completed, in at least each of the two survey periods immediately prior to project initiation. If a nest site is found, consultation with CDFG shall be required to ensure project initiation will not result in nest disturbance. Mitigation 2. Compensation for loss of foraging habitat. Loss of 297.5 acres (120 ha) of foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks should be mitigated by providing offsite Habitat Management (HM) lands as described in the CDFG’s Staff Report regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California (CDFG 1994b) because the site was confirmed to be foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks through direct observation and is likely within ten miles of an active nest (used during one or more of the last five years). The acreage of offsite management lands to be provided will depend on the distance between the project site and the nearest active nest site (CDFG 1994b). The 1994 CDFG staff report states: Projects within one mile of an active nest tree shall provide: Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- One acre of HM land (at least 10% of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement allowing for the active management of the habitat, with the remaining 90% of the HM lands protected by a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats that provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawk) for each acre of development authorized (1:1 ratio); or One-half acre of HM land (all of the HM land requirements shall be met by fee title acquisition or a conservation easement [acceptable to the Department] which allows for the active management of the habitat for prey production on the HM lands) for each acre of development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). Projects within 5 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 1 mile from the nest tree shall provide 0.75 acres of HM land for each acre of urban development authorized (0.75:1 ratio). All HM lands protected under this requirement may be protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the department) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats that provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks. Projects within 10 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 5 miles from an active nest tree shall provide 0.5 acres of HM land for each acre of urban development authorized (0.5:1 ratio). All HM lands protected under this requirement may be protected through fee title acquisition or conservation easement (acceptable to the Department) on agricultural lands or other suitable habitats that provide foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks. Management Authorization holders/project sponsors shall provide for the long-term management of the HM lands by funding a management endowment (the interest on which shall be used for managing the HM lands) at the rate of $400 per HM acre (adjusted annually for inflation and varying interest rates). Current records (Figure 3) within the (2005) are more than five years old, so they alone cannot be used to confirm a mitigation ratio for the loss of approximately 298 acres (120.6 ha) of foraging habitat. The records do, however, provide guidance. The mitigation ratio depends on whether the project site is within one of three zones: 1) less than a mile (1.6 km); 2) between one and five miles (1.6 and 8.0 km); or 3) between five and ten miles (8.0 and 16.1 km). Nests have been recorded within the riparian habitats along both the Stanislaus River and Tuolumne River within ten miles (16.1 km) of the project site. Even though the existing records along these rivers are more than five years old, active unpublished nests along these rivers within the last five years are nearly certain to have occurred. Therefore, we recommend that active Swainson’s Hawks nests are assumed to be present within ten miles (16.1 km) of the project site. Nest season surveys for Swainson’s Hawks should be conducted to confirm whether an active nest occurs within one of the closer zones. Assuming presence of nests within ten miles (16.1 Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 22 ---PAGE BREAK--- km); however, reduces the area requiring nest-season surveys from 314.2 square miles (813.8 km2) to 78.5 square miles (203.3 km2); the area within 5 miles (8.0 km) of the project site. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- Loss of Occupied Burrowing Owl Habitat An adult Burrowing Owl was observed on the project site during field surveys. The owl was observed along a fence line adjacent to irrigated pasture in the southwest section of the project site. The observed owl appeared to be a resident, based on the presence of sign pellets and whitewash) near the entry to a ground squirrel burrow from which the owl emerged. If Burrowing Owls are present on the site, or adjacent to the site, at the time of construction, disturbance could destroy occupied burrows. Construction during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. The loss of occupied Burrowing Owl habitat (habitat known to have been occupied by owls during the nesting season within the past 3 years) or reductions in the number of this rare species within Stanislaus County, directly or indirectly through nest abandonment or reproductive suppression, is considered a significant impact by CDFG. Furthermore, raptors, including owls and their nests, are protected under both federal and state laws and regulations, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code section 3503.5. Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impact on this species to a less- than-significant level. Mitigation 1. Avoidance. The following measures should be proposed as part of the project to avoid disturbance of Burrowing Owls on the project site during breeding and nesting periods. In conformance with Federal and State regulations regarding the protection of raptors, a pre- construction survey for Burrowing Owls will be completed, in conformance with CDFG protocols, no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction within suitable habitat. If no Burrowing Owls are located during these surveys, no additional action would be warranted. However, if breeding or resident owls are located on, or immediately adjacent to, the site, the following mitigation measures should be implemented: No burrowing owls will be evicted from burrows during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31). Eviction outside the nesting season may be permitted pending evaluation of eviction plans and receipt of formal written approval from the CDFG authorizing the eviction. A 250-foot buffer, within which no new activity will be permissible, will be maintained between project activities and nesting burrowing owls. This protected area will remain in effect until August 31, or at the CDFG’s discretion and based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently. If accidental take (disturbance, injury, or death of owls) occurs, the CDFG will be notified immediately. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- Mitigation 2. Compensation for loss of Burrowing Owl habitat. Habitat Management (HM) lands comprising existing Burrowing Owl foraging and breeding habitat should be acquired and preserved. An area of 6.5 acres (2.6 ha) (the amount of land found to be necessary to sustain a pair or individual owl) should be secured for each pair of owls, or individual in the case of an odd number of birds. As part of an agreement with the CDFG, the project applicant should secure the performance of its mitigation duties by providing the CDFG with security in the form of funds that would: Allow for the acquisition and/or preservation of 6.5 acres (2.6 ha) of HM lands; Provide initial protection and enhancement activities on the HM lands, potentially including but not limited to such measures as fencing, trash clean-up, artificial burrow creation, grazing or mowing, and any habitat restoration deemed necessary by CDFG; Establish an endowment for the long-term management of the HM lands, and; Reimburse the CDFG for reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the approval and implementation of this agreement. Pending CDFG approval, HM lands providing foraging habitat for Swainson’s Hawks may also be used to mitigate impacts to Burrowing Owls provided the HM lands provide existing Burrowing Owl foraging and breeding habitat. Disturbance of Nesting Raptors White-tailed hawks, Swainon’s Hawks, and Burrowing owls, and several other raptor species are known, or are expected, to nest in the vicinity of the project area. Raptors eagles, hawks, and owls) and their nests are protected under both federal and state law. Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered a “taking” by the CDFG. Any loss of fertile raptor eggs or nesting raptors, or any activities resulting in raptor nest abandonment, would constitute a significant impact. Construction activities such as tree removal, site grading, etc., that disturb a nesting raptor on-site or immediately adjacent to the construction zone would constitute a significant impact. The mitigation measures described below would reduce these significant impacts of the proposed project to less than significant levels. Mitigation 1. Avoidance. Demolition and construction shall be scheduled to avoid the nesting season, which extends from January through August. Mitigation 2. Pre-construction Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule demolition and construction between August and January, then one of the following options shall be implemented: Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1) With the approval of the CDFG, trees containing known or potential raptor nest sites may be removed to discourage future nesting attempts on the condition that no raptor pair is currently utilizing the site; or, 2) Pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist or wildlife biologist to ensure that no raptor nests will be disturbed during project implementation. A pre-construction survey shall be conducted no more than 14 days prior to the initiation of demolition/construction activities during the early part of the breeding season (January through April) and no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of these activities during the late part of the breeding season (May through August). During this survey, the qualified person shall inspect all trees in and immediately adjacent to the impact areas for raptor nests. If an active raptor nest is found close enough to the construction area to be disturbed by these activities, the ornithologist, in consultation with CDFG, shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative Loss of Swainson’s Hawk and Burrowing Owl Habitat Loss of nesting and foraging habitat due to agricultural and urban expansion has greatly reduced the breeding range and abundance of Swainson’s Hawks and Burrowing Owls in California. Modesto, as the largest city in Stanislaus County, is expected, and planned to, accommodate a substantial share of the County’s projected population growth (City of Modesto 2003a). Development in the Modesto area under the Urban Area General Plan would convert approximately 26,100 acres (10,562 ha) of agricultural land identified by the California Department of Conservation as either Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or farmland of state or local importance (City of Modesto 2003b). Considering agricultural conversion in the Modesto area, conversion of approximately 298 acres (120.6 ha) of suitable Swainson’s Hawk foraging habitat and occupied Burrowing Owl habitat on the project site would result in significant cumulative impacts to Swainson’s Hawks and Burrowing Owls. Mitigation measures described above would reduce these cumulative impacts to less-than-significant levels. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- INDIRECT IMPACTS No indirect impacts to on biological resources would occur from implementing the proposed project. UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS No unavoidable significant adverse impacts on biological resources would occur from implementing the proposed project. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- LITERATURE CITED Bloom, P.H. 1980. The Status of the Swainson’s Hawk in California, 1979. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Project W-54-R-12, Final Report 11-8-0. California Department Of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. Sacramento. 24 pp. [CDFG] California Department of Fish & Game. 1994a. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607. Environmental Services Division. [CDFG] California Department of Fish & Game. 1994b. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. City of Modesto. 2003a. Urban Area General Plan (amended). Modesto Community Development Department. Modesto, CA. City of Modesto. 2003b. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan. Modesto Community Development Department. Modesto, CA. 2005. California Natural Diversity Data Base. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. [CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (6th edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramneto, California. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report. Estep, J.A. 1989. Biology, Movements and Habitat Relationships of the Swainson’s Hawk in the Central Valley of California, 1986-1987. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. 52 pp. Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. [SCS] Soil Conservation Service. 1997. Soil Survey of Stanislaus County, California, Western Part. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT AND WILDLIFE SPECIES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FOR OCCURRENCE AT THE PROJECT SITE Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FOR OCCURRENCE ON THE TIVOLI PROJECT SITE Scientific Name Common Name Lack s suitable soils and / or hydrology Associated species absent from the project site Other edaphic factors absent from project site Project area outside elevation range of species Atriplex minuscule lesser saltscale X X Clarkia rostrata beaked clarkia X X Erodium round-leaved filaree X X Eryngium racemosum Delta button-celery X X X Legenere limosa legenere, X Neostapfia colusana Colusa grass X Orcuttia inaequalis San Joaquin Valley orcutt grass X Orcuttia pilosa hairy orcutt grass X Tuctoria greenei Green’s tuctoria X Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FOR OCCURRENCE ON THE TIVOLI PROJECT SITE Scientific Name Common Name Lack of suitable aquatic habitat Lack of suitable terrestrial habitat or outside of range Lepidurus packardi Vernal pool tadpole shrimp X Branchinecta Vernal pool fairy shrimp X Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Valley elderberry longhorn beetle X californiense California tiger salamander X Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog X X Thamnophis gigas Giant garter snake X X Clemmys marmorata Western pond turtle X coronatum frontale California horned lizard X Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle X X Aquila Golden Eagle X Asio otus Long-eared Owl X Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon X Pandion haliaetus Osprey X Icteria virens Yellow-breasted Chat X Empidonax traillii Willow Flycatcher X Dendroica petechia brewsteri Yellow Warbler X Progne subis Purple Martin X Eumops perotis Western mastiff bat X Tivoli Specific Plan Biotic Study H. T. Harvey & Associates November 21, 2005 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX F: WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT PREPARED FOR TIVOLI PROJECT ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Water Supply Assessment Prepared For Tivoli Project FINAL DRAFT June 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Modesto Water Supply Assessment Prepared For Tivoli Project Adopted 2006 Modesto City Council Jim Ridenour, Mayor Will O’Bryant Janice Keating Bob Dunbar Brad Hawn Garrad Marsh Kristin Olsen George W. Britton, City Manager ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Team Jim Alves, Assistant Civil Engineer Nick Pinhey, Public Works Director Violet Jakab, Senior Civil Engineer Alison Barratt-Green, Senior Deputy City Attorney With Special Thanks To: Donna Gardner Patrick Kelly Paul Liu Judy Rosa Rich Ulm ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 SECTIONS 1 THROUGH 4 SUPPLY ASSESSMENT 5 SECTION 5 SUPPLY AND DEMAND 6 Step One and Two: Water Supplies 6 Step Three: Water Demand for Specified 17 Step Four: Dry Year 20 Step Five: Dry Year 22 SECTION 6 SUPPLY AND DEMAND 22 Roselle Neighborhood 22 City-Wide Supply and Demand 23 SECTION 7 SUFFICIENCY OF SUPPLY 25 Long Range Water Supply 25 Finding of Assured Water Supply for the 25 SECTION 8 FINAL SB 610 ASSESSMENT ACTIONS BY LEAD 28 Appendix A Senate Bill 610 Appendix B Resolution Adopting WSA Appendix C Draft Bulletin 118 San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Modesto Subbasin ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 2 Introduction This Water Supply Assessment (WSA) for the proposed Tivoli Project (Project) is prepared in compliance with Senate Bill 610 (SB 610). SB 610, effective January 1, 2002, requires a water supply assessment to be prepared for any future development meeting the definition of “Project” as defined in California Water Code section 10912. The proposed Project is located in the City of Modesto and triggers a WSA because the Project proposes more than 500 dwelling units. Figure 1 (p.3) shows the location of the Project within the Roselle-Claribel Comprehensive Planning District (CPD) and in relation to the City of Modesto Sphere of Influence (SOI) and City limit. This 480-acre Project, shown as a Conceptual Plan in Figure 2 is in the southwest corner of the 1,700 acre Roselle-Claribel Specific Plan (SP) area and is bordered by Sylvan Avenue on the south, Oakdale Road on the west and Roselle Avenue on the east. The proposed Claratina Avenue extension will be the northern boundary. Low-density residential developments exist south and west of the Project with agricultural uses on the north and northeast. The Sylvan School site and approved Grogan Park are east of Roselle Avenue. The Project proposes a mix of low, medium and medium-high density residential dwelling units, neighborhood and regional commercial uses, mixed-use commercial and professional office, an elementary school site and parks/open space. Some existing residential and commercial uses will be integrated into this Project as shown on Figure 2. Specific numbers on the amount of proposed commercial retail floor space and actual uses have yet to be clearly defined. Table 1 (p.5) shows the acreage breakdown of land uses for the Project and the number of dwelling units based on the minimum, maximum, and an average density for the range of densities proposed. Data was derived from Tivoli Water Demand Estimate by O’Dell Engineering, dated June 24, 2005 and Tivoli Specific Plan Land Use Summary Table from Dahlin Group, dated November 16, 2005. Approximately 262 net acres of new residential and 85 net acres of new commercial uses are proposed in addition to a 13.5 net acre school site and approximately 30 net acres of new parks, storm basin and open space. Existing residential and existing commercial areas, which are being integrated into the development account for 23 and 6 net acres, respectively. The existing five- acre City of Modesto Tank 4 property, which includes Well #54, is also located within the project area. Based on the Project’s proposed range of densities for net acres (from Dahlin Group dated November 16, 2005), Tivoli will consist of approximately 1,771 to 3,145 new dwelling units (du) with an approximate average of 2,458 du based on average densities for all residential uses. Including the existing 48 du, the approximate total ranges from 1,819 to 3,193 du with an average of 2,506 du. The City of Modesto provides water service to areas within the City limits. The Project is currently outside the City limits, but is within the SOI and General Plan Boundary. The City of Modesto plans to annex the Project area and become the Project’s water provider. The format of this WSA follows the format specified in the “Draft Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001” prepared by the California Department of Water Resources and dated October 8, 2003. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 3 Figure 1: Proposed Tivoli Project within the Roselle-Claribel CPD Roselle (Tivoli) Specific Plan Area Adapted from Community Development Map A-6 TIVOLI PROJECT ROSELLE-CLARIBEL CPD ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 4 Figure 2: Tivoli Conceptual Plan (from Dahlin Group, San Ramon, CA – November 16, 2005) ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 5 Table 1 – Proposed Tivoli Project Acreage and Dwelling Units by Land Use NET DWELLING UNITS 3 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS 1 ACRES 1, 2 LOW AVERAGE HIGH Existing Low & Very Low Density Residential 22.7 48 48 48 Existing Uses Subtotal 23 48 48 48 Very Low Density Residnetial (2 - 3 du/ac) 10.0 20 25 30 Low Density Residential (4 - 8 du/ac) 165.2 661 991 1,322 Medium Density Residential (8 - 18 du/ac) 46.3 370 602 833 Medium/High Density Residential (18 - 24 du/ac) 40.0 720 840 960 New Residential Subtotal 262 1,771 2,458 3,145 Existing Commercial (NC-3 and PO-1) 5.9 - - - Commercial (NC-1, NC-2, RSC-1, RSC-2, GC-1) 85.0 - - - Commercial Subtotal 91 - - - School 13.5 - - - School Subtotal 14 - - - Park/Open Space and Basins 30.3 - - - Park/Open Space/Basin Subtotal* 30 - - - City Tank #4 Site 4 - - - Total 423 1,819 2,506 3,193 1) Density ranges and acres from Dahlin Group's Tivoli Land Use Summary Table, 11/16/05. 2) Excludes 31 acres and 26 acres of internal and perimeter streets, respectively. 3) Based on lowest, highest and, average of densities within the density range for each land use. Sections 1 through 4 Supply Assessment Process Sections 1 through 4 determine the following regarding the preparation of the WSA: 1. Is the project subject to SB610? 2. Is the project subject to SB 221? 3. Is there a public water system (“water supplier”) for the project? 4. Has this project already been the subject of an assessment? 5. Is there an adopted urban water management plan (UWMP)? As described in the Introduction, the Project meets the criteria triggering a WSA under SB 610 because the proposed project consists of more than 500 dwelling units. The Project is not subject to SB 221 (Water Verification) at this time because tentative map applications have not been submitted to the City for this Project. The City of Modesto, as the lead agency and as a water provider, is preparing this WSA. The City has not completed a WSA for the Project development prior to this assessment. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 6 The City of Modesto has an adopted 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). This WSA contains excerpts of the UWMP along with text specific to the Project and any information, which has been updated since adoption of the UWMP. An update to the UWMP is in progress and expected to be approved in 2006. Section 5 Supply and Demand Documentation Step One and Two: Water Supplies This section identifies the water supplies used by the City and quantifies each of the available supply sources in five-year increments from near-term to 2025. Table 2 lists the supply sources and identifies each as either a water right or a water service contract. TABLE 2 – Annual Potable Supply Sources Supply Acre Feet per Year Legal Water Supply Type Ever Used Groundwater Tuolumne Basin(a) Up to 45,625(b) Right Yes Groundwater Turlock Basin Up to 4,587(b) Right Yes MID Treated Surface Water 33,602(c) Contract Yes Tuolumne Basin is also known as the “Modesto Sub-basin.” Groundwater capacities are based on an estimate of each basin’s safe (sustainable) yield as described in the City’s 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. Quantity increases to 67,204 per TDA with MID (Resolution 2005-159) with completion of Phase Two Expansion Project. Both Tuolumne Basin groundwater and Modesto Irrigation District (MID) surface water are potential water sources for the proposed Project. The City of Modesto is a public entity that has both overlying and appropriative rights to the Tuolumne and Turlock groundwater basins and extracts groundwater from these basins for agricultural and urban uses. MID has historical riparian water rights to the Tuolumne River and, through a Treatment and Delivery Agreement (TDA) with the City of Modesto, has delivered treated surface water to the City since 1995. The TDA specifies a maximum allocation of 42 inches of water or the amount calculated as (y/42) times 33,602 ac-ft/yr, whichever is less (where y = the actual number of inches of water allocated to agricultural water users for the irrigation season). Although the TDA specifies a formula for water allocations during shortages (TDA, Section 17.2, Formula for Water Allocation), the reduction in supply is not determined until the time of the shortage. The TDA provides the opportunity for the City to purchase water options at market rates or to trade groundwater for agricultural use for treated surface water to achieve the full entitlement during drought years if such supplemental supplies are available. Currently, the City and MID are working together on Phase Two Expansion of the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant to expand the plant from 33,602 to 67,204 af/yr by ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 7 2009. Distribution system improvements have been identified to fully utilize the surface water treatment plant supply as well as to provide reliability and redundancy in the City’s water system. These improvements include new storage tanks, booster pumping stations, and transmission pipelines and would provide a reliable supply to meet maximum-day and peak-hour demands for the Modesto water system, which includes the area to serve the proposed Project. The Phase Two expansion of the is consistent with the findings of the City’s 2000 UWMP. A new TDA (Amended and Restated Treatment and Delivery Agreement) with MID per Resolution 2005-159 states that upon completion and commercial operation of the Phase Two Expansion Project, treated water deliveries to the City of Modesto shall be increased from 33,602 to 67,204 ac-ft per year. The City is also currently developing six new groundwater wells to meet the City’s supply needs. These planned well locations are shown on Figure 3. The City’s proposed Grogan Well site will be located just east of the proposed Project in the Grogan Park site and is identified through modeling analysis as in the vicinity to serve part of the Project’s build-out needs (Tivoli Hydraulic Impacts Study by West Yost, January 2006). The City’s remediation of wells 8, 50, 225 and, 303 are complete, which will help offset lost capacity of out-of-service wells due to poor water quality. The City is evaluating cost effective alternatives for remediation of some of the remaining out-of-service wells. F Capital Planning 10/27/03 0 2,300 4,600 6,900 9,200 1,150 Feet H W Y 99 MAZE BLV CL AU S RD CLARIBEL RD YOSEMITE BLV OA KD AL E RD LADD RD KIERNAN AVE E HATCH RD BECKWITH RD H ST E SERVICE RD N HA RT RD MILNES RD TU LL Y RD S SA NT A FE AV E HA M M ET T RD E BRIGGSMORE AVE E WHITMORE AVE C OF FE E RD R OS EL LE AV E S HA RT RD PATTERSON RD DA LE RD CH UR CH ST MITCHELL RD SCENIC DR S 9T H ST SNYDER AVE S CA RP EN TE R RD CA RV ER RD FINCH RD M OF FE TT RD PIRRONE RD N CA RP EN TE R RD W BRIGGSMORE AVE ATCHISON ST SA LI DA BL V BO OT HE RD EL VI ST A AV E 6T H ST M C HE NR Y AV E CE NT RA L AV E CHICAGO AVE ROBERTSON RD CALIFORNIA AVE E SERVICE RD PATTERSON RD TU LL Y RD E HATCH RD H W Y 99 TUOLUMNE RIVER DRY CREEK ¯ 0 0.4 0.8 0.2 Miles Legend Future Wells FIGURE 3 – Planned New City Wells KAISER PERKINS McKINNEY GROGAN GALAS FREEDOM ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 8 At least three factors indicate there is currently excess capacity in the Tuolumne River Groundwater basin to supply these and future new wells. First, the groundwater levels have risen five feet from 1996 to 2000 indicating more recharge than pumping and other outflows from the basin for this time period. However, despite this increase in recent years, the groundwater basin level has dropped an overall 15 feet from 1970 to 2000. Also, the period of recovery from 1996 to 2000 consisted of three wet years in a row followed by two above normal water years. Second, City of Modesto groundwater pumping is significantly below historical levels with the six-year average of 45,503 af/yr compared with 1994 pumping average of 68,620 af/yr. The reduced pumping is due primarily to use of MID treated surface water since 1995. Finally, as stated in the UWMP, with continued planned urbanization of agricultural lands the groundwater pumping for agricultural uses decreases and is replaced by pumping increases for urban uses enabling the total basin yield to remain at or near approximately 160,000 af/yr. Therefore, although it appears that existing pumping within the City’s service area is close to the estimated sustainable (“safe”) yield for the City, the percentage of total basin sustainable (“safe”) yield available to the City increases with urbanization over time and the basin remains in balance. It should be noted that the “safe yield” for both the Modesto and Turlock sub-basins as discussed and estimated in the UWMP has not been clearly identified. More extensive studies and modeling will be required to define a “safe” yield for these sub-basins. However, as discussed in this document, with the delivery of MID surface water the groundwater levels have risen since 1996 and the City has maintained groundwater extractions consistent with that considered as a non-overdraft condition. The City considers groundwater extraction operations to be consistent with a non-overdraft condition when groundwater levels continue to rise or stabilize over time. Therefore, the amount of groundwater extraction that provides for a non-overdraft condition is considered a Sustainable Yield or Operational Yield for pumping operations. The term Sustainable Yield will be used throughout this document as the more accurate description of a groundwater extraction level conducive to a non-overdraft operation. All excerpts used in this WSA from the UWMP that state the term “Safe Yield” is restated as Sustainable Yield for the more accurate description. The City’s groundwater extraction amount of 45,625 af/yr from the Modesto Sub-basin, as shown in Table 2, is currently considered the Sustainable Yield for the City. This Sustainable Yield allotted to the City has not been increased over time to account for conversion of agricultural uses to urban uses and thus a larger share of the Modesto Sub-basin Sustainable Yield. The proposed development is in the northeastern part of the City’s water service area within the 1,700-acre Roselle-Claribel Specific Plan. The west and central parts of Modesto’s service area has experienced the loss of 9 wells in recent years due to uranium contamination (wells #11, 14, 22, 24, 34, 37, 44, 283 and, 304), two wells due to nitrates (#236 and 53), one for PCE (well #21) and one for Gross Alpha (well #37). Since June 2005, six wells have undergone remediation and been returned to productive service (wells 8, 38, 50, 225 and 303). A treatment facility at well #21 is under construction and the well is scheduled for productive service once completed. However, the existing remaining out-of-service wells are causing a temporary shortage of ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 9 localized water supply in the north-central and northwestern parts of the city. Because the water system has interconnected components, water from other sources in the City, including wells in the vicinity of this Project such as Well 54 and others, temporarily make up for the lost supply capacity in the north-central and west areas. However, this is only an interim solution as it can potentially reduce water pressures to minimal levels during max-day and peak-hour demands. It is anticipated that the City could continue to lose well production at a rate of approximately 2.3 wells per year for the foreseeable future due to contaminant issues. Total lost well production capacity since 1998 represents approximately 15% of the City’s total well water supply production. This is an improvement from mid 2005 when nearly 19% of the City’s total well water supply production was lost to wells out of service. The City is also developing an aggressive plan to rehabilitate existing wells lost to contaminant issues through the use of wellhead treatment, blending, well strata sealing and through exploration of other emerging technologies. The Department of Health Services (DHS) has approved the use of Wells #34, 37, and 55 for emergency standby use, if needed. The current water supply limitation caused by poor water quality wells is also being offset by water conservation. An aggressive water conservation program was begun on May 1st, 2003 and has been successful to date in maintaining peak summer demands at or below year 2002 levels, not-withstanding the City’s growth during this period. [THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 10 Table 4.2 (Updated(a)) - Summary of Current and Projected Water Supplies (ac-ft) Based on Ground and Surface Water Sources Condition MID(d) TID(e) MID(f) 2005 Normal 45,625 4,587 33,602 83,814 Multi-year Drought(b) Year 1 45,625 4,587 31,202 81,414 Year 2 45,625 4,587 28,802 79,014 Year 3 45,625 4,587 26,402 76,614 2010 Normal 45,625 4,587 67,204 117,416 Multi-year Drought(b) Year 1 45,625 4,587 62,404 112,616 Year 2 45,625 4,587 57,604 107,816 Year 3 45,625 4,587 52,803 103,015 2015 Normal 45,625 4,587 67,204 13,440 130,856 Multi-year Drought(b) Year 1 45,625 4,587 62,404 12,480 125,096 Year 2 45,625 4,587 57,604 11,520 119,336 Year 3 45,625 4,587 52,803 10,560 113,575 2020 Normal 45,625 4,587 67,204 13,440 33,602 164,458 Multi-year Drought(b) Year 1 45,625 4,587 62,404 12,480 31,202 156,298 Year 2 45,625 4,587 57,604 11,520 28,802 148,137 Year 3 45,625 4,587 52,803 10,560 26,402 139,977 SOI Buildout: 2025 Normal 45,625 4,587 67,204 13,440 33,602 164,458 Multi-year Drought(b) Year 1 45,625 4,587 62,404 12,480 31,202 156,298 Year 2 45,625 4,587 57,604 11,520 28,802 148,137 Year 3 45,625 4,587 52,803 10,560 26,402 139,977 General Plan Buildout: 2030 Normal 45,625 4,587 67,204 13,440 33,602 164,458 Multi-year Drought(b) Year 1 45,625 4,587 62,404 12,480 31,202 156,298 Year 2 45,625 4,587 57,604 11,520 28,802 148,137 Year 3 45,625 4,587 52,803 10,560 26,402 139,977 Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin(c) Turlock Groundwater Basin(c) Current and Projected Water Supply(g) This table has been revised for this Water Supply Assessment to reflect updated population projections contained in the City’s Final Master EIR for its General Plan certified in March 2003. Although the MID supply agreement specifies a formula for water allocations during shortages, the reduction in supply is not determined until the time of the shortage (Section 17.2 Formula for Water Allocation). In 1991, 33 inches of the 42-inch total water allocation was defined as the base supply and the remaining 9 inches were available as options, which resulted in 100% allotment. MID supply reductions are based on the 1991 drought year being the third drought year with a total reduction of 9 inches out of the 42-inch total. The 9 inches are distributed evenly among the three drought years with a 3-inch reduction allocated to each year. Estimated Sustainable Yields from Table 4.1; As noted in the text, the Sustainable Yield can be expected to increase with decomissioning of private wells as urbanization occurs. Assumes the will be increased from 33,602 ac-ft/yr to 67,204 ac-ft/yr capacity by year 2009. Estimated future TID surface water supply of 13,440 ac-ft/yr based on current WTP design agreement with TID. Estimated future MID Phase III surface water supply based on available capacity of existing transmission pipeline from Supply is based on sum of all ground and surface water sources. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 11 Groundwater Assessment This section addresses Water Code section 10910 paragraphs 1 through 5 which pertains to the use of groundwater for the proposed project. The DWR Guidebook has organized the Supply Assessment for this part into paragraphs through Urban Water Management and Groundwater Management Plans The City overlies and draws water from two groundwater sub-basins: the Tuolumne River Groundwater Sub-basin and the Turlock Groundwater Sub-basin. The Tuolumne River groundwater sub-basin is also referred to as the Stanislaus and Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin and the Modesto Sub-basin. The proposed project overlies the Modesto Sub-basin and therefore, the analysis in this WSA will focus on this sub-basin. Modesto, in conjunction with other agencies within the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin, formed the Stanislaus & Tuolumne Rivers’ Groundwater Basin Association or Groundwater Association). In conjunction with the Groundwater Association, the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and the Turlock Irrigation District (TID) have prepared separate Groundwater Management Plans for each of the two respective sub-basins. The City has adopted the Groundwater Management Plan and is in the process of finalizing the TID Groundwater Management Plan to constitute the Modesto Groundwater Management Plan. The City is implementing elements identified in the Groundwater Management Plans including monitoring groundwater levels and implementing conjunctive use. The City has an adopted 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. Excerpts from the UWMP regarding groundwater supply are presented below: Supply Reliability (excerpt from page 12 of 2000 UWMP) The reliability of the surface water supply is dependent on hydrologic variations and the ability to store and extract water from available storage reservoirs. Groundwater, which is less prone to short-term variability, now provides a "safety net" during dry years when surface water supplies are limited. The future Worst Case Scenario will occur in 2020 when the maximum loss of supply in the third year of drought will be This scenario assumes that all new supplies are reduced during drought in the same percentage as surface water supplies. If new supplies are derived from groundwater or other “drought- proof” sources, the reductions will be less severe. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan is presented in Chapter 9. To increase this reliability, the City and MID through its Treatment and Delivery Agreement formally recognize the importance of promoting and encouraging both urban and agricultural water users to utilize water conservation practices that are effective, practical, and economical. However, the Draft EIR noted that groundwater levels were in a decline, particularly near the City center, and that with declining water levels water quality was also declining. The constituents of concern were dissolved solids, hardness, major ions (probably iron and manganese), organics and nitrates. Declining water quality combined with increasingly stricter standards from the state and federal regulatory agencies had forced the City to take several wells out of service. Although groundwater levels have been recovering since the start-up of the the City currently closely monitors water quality and those wells showing high nitrate levels have remained out of service. The City currently employs wellhead treatment for a few wells with granular activated carbon (GAC) to remove organics from groundwater. The City has also identified up to 3 wells that will not meet a proposed federal arsenic limit of 10 ppb without treatment.(a) Groundwater production may be limited in the future due to water quality issues and the cost and availability of well-head treatment technologies. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 12 The City is currently preparing a Groundwater Management Plan, which will examine the impacts of groundwater quality on yield rates in more detail. Groundwater (excerpt from page 36 of the 2000 UWMP) The City presently operates 118 drinking water wells including the former Del Este wells. The wells are in the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers' Groundwater Basin and the Turlock Groundwater Basin. The total safe sustainable yield available to the City’s water system is 50,000 ac-ft/yr. In 1999 the City wells produced 48,558 ac-ft of water according to pumping records. The City produced 45,273 ac-ft of water from the wells in 2000. Groundwater sources and safe sustainable yields for the Turlock and Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers' Basins are summarized in Table 4.1. As of 12/31/05 the number of wells not meeting the new Federal arsenic standard of 10 ppm is two The new Federal arsenic standard took effect in January 2006. TABLE 4.1 - Sources of Groundwater Service Area Municipal Usage (ac-ft) % of Total Basin Usage(c) Municipal Sustainable Yield (ac-ft) Annual Depletion (ac-ft)(f) Tuolumne River Basin North Modesto (including Del Este in N. Modesto, Waterford, and Del Rio) 58,764(a) 87% 43,537(d) 15,227 Empire 1,642(a) 2% 1,217(d) 425 Salida 1,175(a) 2% 871(d) 304 Total 61,581 91% 45,625 15,956 Turlock Basin South Modesto 5,632(b) 1.2% 4,587(e) 1,045(g) 1993 figures (from p. 3-50 of Tuolumne River GMP, April 1995). 1995 figures (from Table 2 of Draft Turlock Groundwater Basin GMP, August 1997). Based on total usage from member agencies in each basin, this is the percentage that Modesto uses. According to Tuolumne River GMP 3-46), the total municipal safe sustainable yield for Tuolumne Basin is 50,000 ac-ft. The total municipal safe sustainable yield allocated to Modesto is approx. 91% of total (91% of 50,000 ac-ft = 45,625 ac-ft). Municipal safe sustainable yield was calculated as total usage minus annual depletion. Annual depletion is calculated as total usage minus safe sustainable yield. According to Figure 10 in Turlock Groundwater Basin GMP, the total annual depletion for Turlock Basin is 70,000 to 85,000 ac-ft. For South Modesto, this depletion was allocated at the same percentage as usage; i.e., at 1.2% of 85,000 = 1,045 ac-ft. The municipal usage for North Modesto (including Del Este), Empire, and Salida is based on 1993 figures provided in the Stanislaus & Tuolumne Rivers' Groundwater Basin Association GMP (April 1995). The report also indicates that the total municipal safe yield for 1993 in the Tuolumne Basin was 50,000 ac-ft. North Modesto's safe sustainable yield was calculated by allocating the percentage of usage by each member agency in the groundwater basin; for example, North Modesto used about 87 percent of the total basin usage and, therefore, the safe sustainable yield would be 87 percent of the total safe sustainable yield. The annual depletion was calculated by subtracting the safe sustainable yield from the total usage. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 13 The municipal usage for South Modesto is based on 1995 figures provided in the 1997 Turlock Groundwater Basin Management Plan. The report also indicates that the total annual depletion for 1990 was approximately 70,000 to 85,000 ac-ft. Because the total safe sustainable yield for 1995 was not provided, the annual depletion of 85,000 ac-ft was allocated to South Modesto using the percentage of total usage, as described in the preceding paragraph. The safe sustainable yield was determined by subtracting the calculated annual depletion from the total usage. Immediately after the completion of the the City of Modesto cut groundwater pumping nearly in half (14.7 billion gallons in 1994 to 7.7 billion gallons in 1995). This occurred near the same time that the GMPs and the calculations of safe sustainable yield were being developed. The 1995 UWMP noted, “the integrity and reliability of the (groundwater) supply had, at times, been dictated by quality rather than quantity.” Draft EIR noted that groundwater levels were in a decline, particularly near the City center, and that with declining water levels water quality was also declining. The Issue of developing safe yield from the groundwater basins deserves further study, especially in light of emerging regulations for arsenic and radon. For the purposes of this plan, the previously derived safe sustainable yield levels were used. Groundwater Basin Description The following description of the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin has been excerpted from the Department of Water Resource’s Draft Bulletin 118: “Draft Individual Basin Description: Modesto Sub-basin” (dated 2/27/04). The term “Modesto Sub-basin” is another name used by DWR for the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin. The proposed project overlies the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin. The Stanislaus and Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin (Modesto sub-basin) lies between the Stanislaus River to the north and Tuolumne River to the south and between the San Joaquin River on the west and basement rock of the Sierra Nevada foothills on the east. The northern, western, and southern boundaries are shared with the Eastern San Joaquin Valley, Delta- Mendota, and Turlock Groundwater Sub-basins, respectively. The sub-basin comprises land primarily in the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and the southern two-thirds of the Oakdale Irrigation District (OID). The City of Modesto is in the southwestern portion of the sub-basin. Average annual precipitation for this sub-basin is 11 to 15 inches, increasing eastward. Water Bearing Formations The primary hydrogeologic units in the Modesto Sub-basin include both consolidated and unconsolidated sedimentary deposits. The consolidated deposits include the Ione Formation of the Miocene age, the Valley Draft Springs formation of Eocene age, and the Merthen Formation, which was deposited during the Miocene to Pliocene Epochs. The consolidated deposits lie in the eastern portion of the sub-basin and generally yield small quantities of water to wells except for the Merthen Formation, which is an important aquifer. In the Sub-basin, the Merthen Formation is composed of up to 300 feet of sandstone, breccia, conglomerate, tuff siltstone and claystone (Page 1973). ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 14 The unconsolidated deposits were laid down during the Pliocene to present and, from oldest to youngest, include continental deposits lacustrine and marsh deposits, older alluvium, younger alluvium, and flood-sub-basin deposits. The continental deposits and older alluvium are the main water-yielding units in the unconsolidated deposits. The lacustrine and marsh deposits (which include the Corcoran, or Clay), and the flood- sub-basin deposits yield little water to wells, and the younger alluvium in most places probably yields only moderate quantities of water to wells (Page 1973). The Continental deposits consist of poorly sorted gravel, sand, silt and clay varying in thickness from 0 to 450 feet occurring at the surface on the eastern side of the sub-basin to over 400 feet deep in the western portion. These deposits are the equivalent of the North Merced Gravels and the lower Turlock Lake Formation (Davis and others 1959). The older alluvium consists of intercalated beds of gravel, sand, silt and clay with some hardpan. This alluvium is up to 400 feet thick and is generally present near or at the surface of the western one-half of the sub-basin. The older alluvium is largely equivalent to the Riverbank and Modesto Formations (Davis and others 1959) Ground water occurs under unconfined, semi-confined, and confined conditions. The unconfined water body occurs in the unconsolidated deposits above and east of the Corcoran Clay, which underlies the southwestern portion of the sub-basin at depths ranging from 150 to 200 feet (DWR 1981). Where clay lenses restrict the downward flow of groundwater, semi-confined conditions occur. The confined water body occurs in the unconsolidated deposits below the Corcoran Clay and extends downward to the base of fresh water. The estimated average specific yield of this sub-basin is 8.8 percent (based on DWR San Joaquin District Draft internal data and Davis and others 1959). Groundwater Storage Estimations of the total storage capacity of the sub-basin and the amount of water in storage as of 1995 were calculated using an estimated specific yield of 8.8 percent and water levels collected by DWR and cooperators. According to these calculations, the total storage capacity of the sub-basin is estimated to be 11,000,000 ac-ft to a depth of 300 feet and 18,000,000 ac-ft of groundwater to a depth of 300 feet stored in this sub-basin as of 1995 (DWR 1995). According to published literature, the amount of stored groundwater in this sub-basin as of 1961 is 14,000,000 ac-ft to a depth of < 1000 feet (Williamson 1989). Is the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin Adjudicated? The Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin is not an adjudicated basin. Groundwater Level Trends The following description of the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin’s groundwater level trends has been excerpted from the Department of Water Resource’s Draft Bulletin 118: “Draft Individual Basin Description: Modesto Sub-basin.” The term “Modesto Sub-basin” is another name used by DWR for the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin. The full text of Draft Bulletin 118 is provided in Appendix C. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 15 Changes in groundwater levels are based on annual water level measurements by DWR and cooperators. Water level changes were evaluated by quarter township and computed through a custom DWR computer program using geostatistics (kriging). On average, the sub-basin water level has declined nearly 15 feet from 1970 through 2000. The period from 1970 through 1978 showed steep declines totaling about 12 feet. The six-year period from 1978 to 1984 saw stabilization and rebound of about 7 feet. 1984 through 1995 again showed steep declines, bottoming out in 1995 at nearly 20 feet below the 1970 level. Water levels then rose about 5 feet from 1996 to 2000. Water level declines have been more severe in the eastern portion of the sub-basin, but have risen faster in the eastern sub-basin between 1996 and 2000 than in any other portion of the sub-basin. Although a detailed budget was not available for this sub-basin, an estimate of groundwater demand was calculated based on the 1990 normalized year and data on land and water use. A subsequent analysis was done by a DWR water budget spreadsheet to estimate overall applied water demands, agricultural groundwater extractions, urban pumping demand and other extraction data. Natural recharge into the sub-basin is estimated to be 86,000 af. Artificial recharge and subsurface inflow values are not determined. There is approximately 92,000 af of applied water recharge. Annual urban and agricultural extractions are estimated to be 81,000 and 145,000 af, respectively. There are no other extractions and values for subsurface outflow are not determined. The last paragraph of the above excerpt from the Department of Water Resource’s Draft Bulletin 118 regarding estimates of recharges and extractions indicate a net extraction or overdraft condition of approximately 48,000 af, in the sub-basin (86,000 af + 92,000 af – 81,000 af – 145,000 af = -48,000 af). This is in stark contrast to field data, also stated above, showing an increase in groundwater levels of five feet between 1996 and 2000. This further indicates that a “safe” yield has not been determined and that the City’s practice of operating within a sustainable yield whereby groundwater levels can be frequently monitored is the more responsible groundwater management approach until such time as a “safe” yield is determined. Table 3: Well Production Characteristics Well Yields:(gal/min) Municipal/Irrigation: Range: 350 – 4,500 Average: 1,000 – 2,000 Production Depths: (ft) Total depths of completed wells Domestic: Range: 81 - 500 Average depth: 266 Municipal/Irrigation: Range: 50 – 500 Average depth: unk. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 16 Managing Groundwater Extractions As described in the UWMP, the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant was brought on-line in 1995 primarily to mitigate the groundwater overdraft condition in the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin. The City has maintained groundwater extractions below the estimated sustainable yield of the Modesto sub-basin since its operation in 1995. To further safeguard the groundwater sub-basin from being over-drafted, the City and MID are in the process of implementing the Phase Two expansion of the from 33,602 ac-ft/yr to 67,204 ac-ft/yr. The Phase Two Expansion is expected to be fully operational by 2009. The City is also working with TID and other participating cities within the Turlock Groundwater Sub-basin region on a plan to construct a TID Water Treatment Plant (TWTP) to be located east of Modesto on the south side of the Tuolumne River. The City recently entered into an agreement with TID to participate in design of the TWTP and transmission main with the intent of entering into a future TDA with TID for delivery of 13,440 af/yr (12 mgd) of TID surface water to the south Modesto area. This effort, if concluded with a TDA, would provide a conjunctive water use to south Modesto. This conjunctive use would not only relieve south Modesto from sole reliance on groundwater sources in that area but also from groundwater sources north of the river which currently are used to supply some the the City’s southern needs. The City is also planning to conduct a feasibility study within the next 2 to 3 years on an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) program within both sub-basins. The intent of this study would be to purchase and utilize the full allowable water deliveries under TDA’s with both MID and TID that could result in significant reductions of groundwater extractions well below the sustainable yields of the sub-basins. These lower groundwater extractions could be more significant in the early years after the start of increased surface water deliveries when less groundwater would be needed but with time groundwater extractions would be slowly increased as needed to the established year 2000 sustainable yield levels or to increased levels based on conversion of agricultural uses to urban uses. During this time of reduced groundwater extractions, the sub- basins would be allowed to “store” or “bank” more of the natural recharge supply that would normally be pumped for City uses without an ASR program in place. At a later date, the City could “recover” through increased extractions this stored groundwater, minus a small loss, for municipal uses. and Five Year Groundwater Pumping Quantities Table 2 (p.6) presented the groundwater pumped from the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin by the City. The average groundwater extraction from the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin for the period 1986 to 1990 for the former Del Este and City of Modesto systems was 56,800 af/yr (Source: Modesto Domestic Water Project Transmission Facilities Pre-Design Hydraulic Analysis and Report, Black and Veatch, 1991). This groundwater extraction quantity was well above the estimated sustainable yield of the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin of 45,625 af/yr (Source: 2000 UWMP, Table 4.1, page 36). Table 4 shows that groundwater extractions for the past six years have averaged approximately 45,500 af/yr, which is below the estimated sustainable yield of the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin of 45,625 af/yr. The began operation in 1995 producing approximately 33,600 ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 17 af/yr. However, the groundwater extractions are once more trending upwards and MID and the City are responding by implementing Phase 2 Expansion of the from 33,602 af/yr to 67,204 af/yr. The Phase Two Expansion Project is expected to be operational by 2009. The groundwater extractions shown in Table 4 do not include groundwater pumped by MID or by private water users. As described in the UWMP, the estimate of sustainable yield of 45,625 af/yr is the City’s proportional share of the Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin’s total municipal sustainable yield of 50,000 af/yr. Analysis of the Sufficiency of the Groundwater to Supply Proposed Project A discussion of the groundwater basin within which the proposed Tivoli Project will draw its water supply was addressed in “Step Two” part presented above. Step Three: Water Demand for Specified Project The Project is outside the City limits. The Project’s estimated water demands were calculated from water use factors established in the Water Master Plan supplied by West Yost & Associates, the City’s consulting engineer on the Project, and which have been updated to reflect current standards of the revised General Plan Housing Element. These estimated demands are compared in the WSA to generalized demands derived from the City of Modesto’s 2000 UWMP (as revised to reflect updated population projections in the 2003 GPMEIR). [THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] Table 4: City of Modesto Five Year Groundwater Extractions From the Tuolumne river Groundwater Basin Year Groundwater Extraction, af/yr 2000 42,100 2001 44,900 2002 47,700 2003 46,800 2004 2005 46,100 45,420 6 Year Average 45,503 Source: Well production total minus North Ceres, Turlock, Hickman, Grayson and South Modesto wells. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 18 Table 6.1 from the UWMP showing past, current, and projected water use for the total City of Modesto water service area is presented below: TABLE 6.1 (Revised(a)) - Past, Current and Projected Water Use (ac-ft) Water Use Sectors 1990 1995 2000(d) 2005 2010 2015 2020 General Plan Buildout Residential(b) 34,100 44,600 48,100 Non-Residential 21,000 27,400 29,700 Joint MID, COM Service Area 67,360 72,840 79,070 94,200 106,900 119,600 132,300 Total(c) 55,100 72,000 77,800 84,000 97,100 110,200 123,300 136,400 This table has been revised for this Water Supply Assessment to reflect updated population projections contained in the City’s Final Master EIR for its General Plan certified in March 2003. From p. II-4 of the Modesto Domestic Water Project Transmission Facilities Pre-Design, Hydraulic Analysis and Report for MID (1991), the residential vs. ICI accounts were assumed to be 64% and 36%, respectively. Historical Production Data provided by the City of Modesto; includes unaccounted-for water. Water use was projected by applying an average per capita water use of 289 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) to the projected population. This includes residential and non-residential uses. Residential uses alone currently average 170 gpcd. Total well use = 44,045 ac-ft, Surface water = 33,816 ac-ft. The UWMP demands for the proposed Project were derived from Table 6.1 of the UWMP by applying the projected water use at build-out of the General Plan of 136,400 af/yr to the total Urban Area General Plan area of 40,002 acres (excludes open space of 2,685 acres). The resulting UWMP unit water demand factor is 3,044 gpd/ac. Therefore, applying the water demand factor of 3,044 gpd/ac to the proposed 480-acre development results in an attributed average day demand of 1,461,120 gpd (1.46 mgd) or 1,635 af/yr. This demand reflects the UWMP demand projection method, which used the actual per capita water use and applied it to existing and future population projections. Therefore, the water use factor represents the water use generated by the City-wide mix of land uses as they existed in the year 2000. Actual development projects with more water intensive land uses such as industries and hospitals can be expected to have higher projected water demands than what is attributed in the UWMP. Conversely, land uses with lower water uses such as small-lot single-family homes and business parks typically have projected water demands lower then the UWMP water use projections. The UWMP method assumes that, as the City grows, the land use mix will remain relatively constant. Total average annual water demand for Tivoli is estimated at 1,230,300 gpd (1.23 mgd) or 1,378 af/yr, which is 16 percent lower than the 1,635 af/yr water demand projected for a 480-acre site by the 2000 UWMP. Maximum day demand is projected to be approximately 2,140,700 gpd (2.14 mgd) or 6.57 af/d. Peak-hour demand is projected at 2,162 gpm. Table 5 (p.19) shows the average, maximum-day and peak-hour water demands for each land use type for the Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 19 Table 5: Tivoli Project - Average, Maximum-Day and Peak-Hour Water Demands Land Use Designations(a) Acres(a)(b) Water Use Factor(c) Dwelling Units(d) (avg) Average Day Use(e) (gpd) Maximum Day Use(f) (gpd) Peak Hour(g) (gpm) Existing Low Density Residential 22.7 730 48 35,040 60,970 62 Existing Commercial (NC-3, PO-1) 5.9 2,590 15,281 26,589 27 Existing Uses Subtotal 28.6 48 50,321 87,559 88 Very Low Density Residential 10 730 25 18,250 31,755 32 Low Density Residential 165.2 470 991 465,864 810,603 818 Medium density Residential 46.3 225 602 135,428 235,644 238 Medium-High Density Residential 40 225 840 189,000 328,860 332 New Residential Subtotal 261.5 2,458 808,542 1,406,862 1,421 Regional Commercial 68.8 2,590 178,192 310,054 313 Commercial (GC-1, NC-1, NC-2) 16.2 2,590 41,958 73,007 74 School 13.5 3,126 42,201 73,430 74 Park/Open Space and Basins 30.3 3,480 105,444 183,473 185 City Tank 4 Site(h) 4.2 3,480 3,654 6,358 6 Total 423.1 2,506 1,230,312 2,140,742 2,162 a) From Dahlin Group's Tivoli Land Use Plan, 11/16/05 b) Total does not include approximately 57 acres of internal collector and perimeter roads. c) From Final Tivoli Hydraulics Impact Study by West Yost & Associates, 1/5/06. Units are gpd/du for Residential and gpd/ac for Commercial. d) Based on average density for each land use from O'Dell Engineering Land Use Summary, 11/16/05. e) Residential: Water Use Factor x Dwelling Units. Commercial: Water Use Factor x Acreage. f) Calculated from City Standard for Max Day Use of 1.74 times the Average Day Use. g) Calculated from City Standard for Peak-hour Use of 2.53 times the Average Day Use. h) Assumed 25% of the area used for perimeter landscaping on the property. The estimated average annual water demand is lower than that projected by the UWMP method because the average residential density of Tivoli is higher than the average residential density for the entire Modesto City water service area resulting in less average water use per dwelling from reduced per-lot landscaping demands. Also, since adoption of the 2000 UWMP, water use factors have been refined by West Yost & Associates for this Project. It is also important to note that through the City’s implementation plan to base future water usage fees on water metering instead of flat rate, further reductions in water usage per dwelling could be expected. The above water usage figures do not reflect any savings resulting from water metering. New supply capacity shall meet a Project’s peak-hour demands, which for the City’s Water System has averaged 2.53 times the average day demands over the past five years (WTS Demand Applying the 2.53 factor to the average day demands presented in Table 5 results in a peak-hour Project demand of 2,162 gpm. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 20 Step Four: Dry Year Supply This section determines the impact of dry water years on the City’s water supplies. Chapter 4 of the UWMP addresses dry year supplies and is included below for this section of the WSA. Available Water Supply Sources The domestic water system is supplied from surface water and from groundwater wells. The following sections describe the current surface water and groundwater supplies and planned expansion of these supplies. Surface Water MID has historic surface water rights for the Tuolumne River. These water rights have been employed to deliver raw water to the The is located at the Modesto Reservoir, approximately 14 miles east of the city. The plant is a complete conventional treatment facility providing flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration, along with ozonation for primary disinfection. The site was master planned for a total capacity of 67,204 af/yr, with an initial capacity of 33,602 af/yr. The and the transmission pipeline are owned and operated by MID and provide treated surface water to the City’s Municipal Water System by agreement. The Treatment and Delivery Agreement is the document controlling the delivery of treated water to the City. It obligates MID to deliver 33,602 ac-ft of treated surface water, commencing on May 1 and ending the following April 30, during normal years. There is a formula to reduce deliveries in drier than average years based on the number of inches allocated to agricultural customers. During supply shortage years, the delivery of surface water by MID may be reduced in equal proportions with deliveries to its agricultural customers. The City, however, will have the option of making up these shortages by delivering an equal amount of groundwater to the irrigation canal system in exchange for treated surface water, which could lead to short-term over-drafting of the groundwater basin. There is also a provision to supply more than 33,602 af/yr, should the supplies be available, up to a maximum 67,204 ac-ft. The EIR was completed in March 1990. It was anticipated at that time that the proposed water treatment plant would be constructed in two phases of 33,602 af/yr each. Phase 1 was expected to be completed by 1993 but was actually completed in January 1995. Phase 2 was projected to be operational by 2005. The EIR identified increased surface water supply for current and future urban uses as water that has been made available from the urban development of agricultural land. The EIR did not discuss future expansions beyond 2005. As the area continues to grow toward build-out, the City will need to further expand its supplies to meet the projected increase in urban demands (see Chapter 6 for water demand projections). The City plans to study the supply alternatives available for meeting these increased future demands. These alternatives could include a combination of an expanded surface water supply and conversion of agricultural wells to urban uses. Groundwater The City presently operates 118 drinking water wells including the former Del Este wells. The wells are in the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers' Groundwater Basin and the Turlock Groundwater Basin. The total safe sustainable yield available to the City’s water system is 50,000 ac-ft/yr. In 1999 the City wells produced 48,558 ac-ft of water according to pumping records. The City produced 45,273 ac-ft of water from the wells in 2000. Groundwater sources and safe sustainable yields for the Turlock and Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers' Basins are summarized in Table 4.1. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 21 TABLE 4.1 - Sources of Groundwater Service Area Municipal Usage (ac-ft) % of Total Basin Usage(c) Municipal Sustainable Yield (ac-ft) Annual Depletion (ac-ft)(f) Tuolumne River Basin North Modesto (including Del Este in N. Modesto, Waterford, and Del Rio) 58,764(a) 87% 43,537(d) 15,227 Empire 1,642(a) 2% 1,217(d) 425 Salida 1,175(a) 2% 871(d) 304 Total 61,581 91% 45,625 15,956 Turlock Basin South Modesto 5,632(b) 1.2% 4,587(e) 1,045(g) 1993 figures (from p. 3-50 of Tuolumne River GMP, April 1995). 1995 figures (from Table 2 of Draft Turlock Groundwater Basin GMP, August 1997). Based on total usage from member agencies in each basin, this is the percentage that Modesto uses. According to Tuolumne River GMP 3-46), the total municipal safe sustainable yield for Tuolumne Basin is 50,000 ac-ft. The total municipal safe sustainable yield allocated to Modesto is approx. 91% of total (91% of 50,000 ac-ft = 45,625 ac-ft). Municipal safe sustainable yield was calculated as total usage minus annual depletion. Annual depletion is calculated as total usage minus safe sustainable yield. According to Figure 10 in Turlock Groundwater Basin GMP, the total annual depletion for Turlock Basin is 70,000 to 85,000 ac-ft. For South Modesto, this depletion was allocated at the same percentage as usage; i.e., at 1.2% of 85,000 = 1,045 ac-ft. The municipal usage for North Modesto (including Del Este), Empire, and Salida is based on 1993 figures provided in the Stanislaus & Tuolumne Rivers' Groundwater Basin Association GMP (April 1995). The report also indicates that the total municipal safe sustainable yield for 1993 in the Tuolumne Basin was 50,000 ac-ft. North Modesto's safe sustainable yield was calculated by allocating the percentage of usage by each member agency in the groundwater basin; for example, North Modesto used about 87 percent of the total basin usage and, therefore, the safe sustainable yield would be 87 percent of the total safe sustainable yield. The annual depletion was calculated by subtracting the safe sustainable yield from the total usage. The municipal usage for South Modesto is based on 1995 figures provided in the 1997 Turlock Groundwater Basin Management Plan. The report also indicates that the total annual depletion for 1990 was approximately 70,000 to 85,000 ac-ft. Because the total safe yield for 1995 was not provided, the annual depletion of 85,000 ac-ft was allocated to South Modesto using the percentage of total usage, as described in the preceding paragraph. The safe sustainable yield was determined by subtracting the calculated annual depletion from the total usage. Immediately after the completion of the the City of Modesto cut groundwater pumping nearly in half (14.7 billion gallons in 1994 to 7.7 billion gallons in 1995). This occurred near the same time that the GMPs and the calculations of safe sustainable yield were being developed. The 1995 UWMP noted “the integrity and reliability of the (groundwater) supply had, at times, been dictated by quality rather than quantity.” Draft EIR noted that groundwater levels were in a decline, particularly near the City center, and that with declining water levels water quality was also declining. The issue of developing safe sustainable yield from the groundwater basins deserves further study, especially in light of emerging regulations for arsenic and radon. For the purposes of this plan, the previously derived safe sustainable yield levels were used. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 22 Step Five: Dry Year Demand This section of the WSA describes the effect of dry water years on water demands. Chapter 6 of the UWMP addresses the water demands in dry years and is included below for this section of the WSA. Demands during droughts generally increase due to the lack of rainfall for landscape irrigation. For the purposes of this plan, the future demands during drought conditions have been assumed to remain constant, as a balance between increasing irrigation demands and reduced consumption in response to increased conservation. Since the most severe shortage anticipated for urban customers in the third year of drought would be 14 percent, the City would remain in a Stage 1 water shortage situation. This scenario assumes that all new supplies are reduced during drought in the same percentage as surface water supplies. If new supplies are derived from groundwater or other “drought- proof” sources, the reductions will be less severe. The Water Shortage Contingency Plan is presented in Chapter 9, and shows that a Stage 2 water shortage would be declared in the case of 20 percent or more reduction in supply. Section 6 Supply and Demand Comparison This section has been divided into two parts with the first part describing the supply and demand comparison for the Project and the second part addressing the supply and demand comparison for the entire City of Modesto water system as stated in the City’s 2000 UWMP. Tivoli Development The Project is located in the northeast area of the City’s contiguous water distribution system serving the City of Modesto and communities of Salida, Empire and north Ceres. The City’s water system is experiencing marginal water pressure reliability, which is primarily caused by the loss of fourteen (14) wells over the past several years and to increased demands from new growth. This water supply loss coupled with increased water demand necessitates the addition of a new water supply source for the Project in order to maintain adequate water pressure. New wells with a combined capability of producing a peak-hour supply of at least 2,162 gpm and a maximum-day supply of approximately 6.57 af/d is required prior to first occupancy of the Project. New wells should be accepted and operational with acceptance of subdivision improvements. Although the Project is adjacent to an area supplied by treated surface water from the there is no surplus capacity available until after the planned expansion of the surface water treatment plant Phase Two). Phase Two of the is planned to increase the treated surface water supply City-wide from 33,602 af/yr to 67,204 af/yr on an average annual basis. The Phase Two facilities are planned to include expansion of the treatment plant and improvements to the City’s distribution system including storage tanks and transmission lines. These improvements are projected for operation by the year 2009 and will benefit the Project by providing additional conjunctive use supplies to the City. Until the Phase Two and associated distribution system improvements (tanks, booster pumps, and pipelines) are complete, the Modesto water system will continue to be susceptible to low pressures during peak summer demand periods. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 23 Table 4.1 in the UWMP states an estimated groundwater sustainable yield for the City’s water system of approximately 45,625 af/yr. This sustainable yield is estimated from a total basin sustainable yield of 160,000 acre-feet per year as stated on page 3-46 of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers’ Groundwater Basin Association Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP). The GWMP derives the sustainable municipal yield of 50,000 af/yr by subtracting the “agricultural and drainage pumping” of 110,000 acre-feet per year from the total estimate basin sustainable yield of 160,000 af/yr. As stated in the UWMP, with continued urbanization of agricultural lands, pumping for agricultural uses decreases and pumping for urban uses increases enabling the total basin sustainable yield to remain at or near approximately 160,000 af/yr. Therefore, although it appears that existing pumping within the City’s service area (six-year average of 45,503 af/yr) is close to the estimated sustainable yield for the City of 45,625 af/yr, the sustainable yield available to the City increases over time and the basin remains in balance. City-Wide Supply and Demand Comparison Table 7 of the UWMP is included below to address the supply and demand comparison for the entire City of Modesto water service area. Figure 4 24) has been included here in place of Figure 7.1 from the 2000 UWMP to reflect updated demands resulting from revised population projection data presented in the City’s March 2003 Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the Urban Area General Plan and Related Amendments to the Urban Area General Plan (General Plan MEIR). Additionally, Table 7 reflects updated demand projections completed for the Hydraulic Modeling Project. The demand projections shown in Figure 4 exclude the City’s water service areas outside the General Plan area. The updated population projection is based on the detailed traffic study completed for the General Plan MEIR. Table 7 (below) summarizes the updated population projections and resulting change in the demand projections. Table 7: Updated Population and Demand Projections Based on General Plan MEIR 2000 UWMP for General Plan Area Buildout Updated Projections for General Plan Area Buildout Service Area Population Demands, af/yr Population Demands, af/yr General Plan Area 468,800 151,800 400,000 129,500 COM Water Service Area Outside GP Area(a) 21,300 7,000 21,300 6,896 Total 490,100 158,800 421,300 136,396 These are former Del Estes water service areas now owned by the City of Modesto and consist of portions of the cities of Ceres and Turlock, the cities of Grayson, Hickman, and Waterford and the Del Rio community. A demand of 136,396 af/yr (acre-feet/year) converts to 122 mgd (million gallons per day). [THIS SECTION INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 25 Section 7 Sufficiency of Supply Long Range Water Supply Plan The City has an adopted 2000 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) which presents the City’s long-range water supply planning. As presented in the UWMP, sufficient supply for existing and future development for the City for the next 20 years is planned to be provided by the addition of new wells, remediation of existing wells, Phase Two of the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant a new TID Water Treatment Plant, an ASR Program, water conservation, implementation of water metering, a Conjunctive Use Water Supply Management Program and, additional sources of water supply. Phase Two of the is planned to increase the treated surface water supply from 33,602 af/yr to 67,204 af/yr by 2009 and includes the treatment plant expansion and distribution system improvements including new storage tanks, booster pumping stations, and transmission pipelines. Finding of Assured Water Supply for the Project A finding of an assured water supply for the Project can be made on the condition that new wells in the vicinity of the Project (northeast Modesto Area) are in production prior to first occupancy of the project. This conclusion reflects the loss of a number of wells in the City’s water system and increased water demands due to growth, which together necessitate the need for new supplies for the project. The new wells must have sufficient reliable production capacity to meet or exceed the Project’s peak-hour demand needs of 2,162 gpm. Long-term assured water supply can be made on the condition that Phase Two of the is operational and water deliveries are accepted prior to build out of the Project. The City of Modesto’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) outlines plans for providing sufficient water supply for existing customers and planned future growth through approximately 2027. The proposed Tivoli Project is within the Roselle-Claribel CPD, which is an area included in the UWMP. The proposed project is near existing water infrastructure including wells, distribution system and transmission system piping. This proximity to City water services is consistent with the City’s General Plan policy statement that “Urban growth should be directed, as long as economically feasible, to areas currently served with City services.” The proximity to existing City services and the viability of supply indicate the Project is an area appropriate for development. However, at present the City does not have a sufficient water supply to serve future growth within its service after 2027. In order to serve this potential long-range future growth, the City is reviewing various alternatives for developing and identifying additional sources of water supply, including but not limited to the following: a. Development of a Phase Three expansion of the Modesto Regional Water Treatment Plant A Phase Three expansion is based on the future conversion of agricultural land to urban uses which would allow for a ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 26 corresponding redistribution of MID’s existing surface water rights. The City has engaged in preliminary discussions with MID regarding development of Phase Three and anticipates that any future phase would be developed to meet the need for additional water supply prior to 2027. Based on an estimated physical water delivery limit of 90 mgd (100,800 af/yr) for the transmission pipe facilities between the and the City, it is estimated that a Phase Three could result in an additional 30 mgd (33,600 af/yr) of average day supply or 18 mgd of max-day supply. b. Development of Water Treatment Plant (WTP) in conjunction with the Turlock Irrigation District (TID): The proposed TID WTP is based on the current and future conversion of agricultural land to urban uses which allows for a corresponding redistribution of TID’s existing surface water rights. The development of a new WTP with TID would provide the City with an estimated additional 12 mgd/yr or 13,440 af/yr of surface water to South Modesto. The City is currently working under a design agreement for surface water treatment and transmission facilities with TID that is intended, through a future TDA, to provide the estimated 13,440 af/yr of surface water to South Modesto. TID surface water supply deliveries could be available as early as 2011 and are anticipated within ten years. A conjunctive use water supply strategy in South Modesto would be expected to reduce the dependence on groundwater supplies from the Modesto Basin (north of the Tuolumne River). Reduced dependence of South Modesto demands on groundwater supplies north of the river could make available this supply to serve areas north of the river. c. Development and use of recycled water: The City completed a feasibility study regarding the development of a recycled water system to offset potable demand. Tier I of this project has the potential to provide an additional 6,720 to 11,200 af/yr (6–10 mgd) of water by applying recycled water for irrigation at existing golf courses, parks, schools, and industrial uses, and in future Comprehensive Planning Districts. However, much of this additional supply will not affect potable water supply needs because most of the golf course and parks irrigation is currently supplied by non-potable sources. The City anticipates that the Tier I system, if found to be economically feasible, could be developed and operational within 5-10 years. d. Update of the City’s Urban Water Management Plan: In 2005, the City initiated a review and update of its existing 2000 Urban Water Management Plan and expects adoption of the 2005 Update in 2006. The proposed update will include revised population projections and more detailed demand projections based on land use to better respond to new development. The revisions will also include updates to the groundwater basin information as developed through the Groundwater Management Plan, including identification of increased municipal sustainable yield potential due to the future conversion of agricultural land to urban uses which would allow for a corresponding reallocation of the groundwater basin’s sustainable yield. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 27 e. Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Program: The City does not anticipate the need for the entire 67,204 af/yr of surface water supply under the TDA with MID until 2018. The City will be looking at the feasibility of purchasing and utilizing the full 67,204 af/yr of MID surface water under the TDA and reducing the corresponding amount of groundwater supplies. The annual reduced needs of groundwater supply would be highest on first deliveries of MID Phase Two surface water in 2009 and would then diminish over time until 2018 when the City anticipates the need for both the full surface water and sustainable yield of groundwater supplies. Reduced annual groundwater usage between 2009 and 2018 could result in annual increases in groundwater supplies and thus an increase in groundwater levels during the same period. This could allow the City to essentially ‘store’ or ‘bank’ the underused groundwater in the Modesto Basin aquifer on an annual basis until 2018. After 2018, the City could start to ‘recover’ that stored groundwater supply annually. The feasibility of an ASR program in South Modesto to reduce future groundwater supply needs through use of TID surface water could also be studied because the City does not anticipate the demand of the entire estimated 12,880 af/yr allocation of TID water in the early years. f. Metering: The City requires installation of water meters with all new development and is currently retrofitting existing water services with meters (approximately 5,000 du per year) but, has not started billing residential customers on metered usage. Typical water use reductions expected from conversion to metered use billing is approximately 10%. The City would expect to realize residential demand reductions of 5% - 10% with metered- based billing. Another benefit of metering is that the City’s water conservation effort can utilize direct system audits to identify significant water leaks (leaky toilets, irrigation pipe breaks, etc). g. Conjunctive Use Water Supply Management Program: The City is moving to a water supply management strategy as discussed in section e, Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Program. In essence, the strategy consists of maximizing the use of available surface water supplies and utilizing groundwater supplies for peaking needs and emergency supply needs. This offers several benefits to the City including: 1. The ability to make maximum use of high quality surface water. 2. Allow for the City’s planned well rehabilitation program to proceed. 3. Allows for the “in-lieu” banking of groundwater by taking maximum deliveries of surface water as it becomes available through MID and TID projects. 4. Allows for balancing of groundwater and surface water use for the maximum beneficial use of water resources within the City’s water service areas. ---PAGE BREAK--- DRAFT WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT FOR TIVOLI PROJECT 28 For the purposes of this Water Supply Assessment, the addition of Phase 2 MID and the addition of TID water to the Modesto system will allow for adequate water supplies beyond 2018 through the “in-lieu” banking of groundwater. The projected stored water quantities and corresponding infrastructure needs associated with this water management strategy will be incorporated into the 2005 UWMP update as an addenda. Section 8 Final SB 610 Assessment Actions by Lead Agency The City of Modesto Council adopted Resolution (Appendix B) approving this Water Supply Assessment at the Council meeting on 2006. The City of Modesto is both the lead agency and the water purveyor for this Tivoli WSA. The basis of this WSA is the City’s adopted 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, which received review by City staff and was adopted by the City Council. Likewise, this WSA has received input from City staff from the following Departments: Public Works, Community and Economic Development, City Manager’s Office, and the City’s Attorneys. Changes for Final will be presented at a full Council meeting. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bills 610 and 221 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-1 Senate Bill No. 610 CHAPTER 643 An act to amend Section 21151.9 of the Public Resources Code, and to amend Sections 10631, 10656, 10910, 10911, 10912, and 10915 of, to repeal Section 10913 of, and to add and repeal Section 10657 of, the Water Code, relating to water. [Approved by Governor October 9,2001. Filed with Secretary of State October 9, 2001.] LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 610, Costa. Water supply planning. Existing law requires every urban water supplier to identify, as part of its urban water management plan, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over a prescribed 5-year period. Existing law prohibits an urban water supplier that fails to prepare or submit its urban water management plan to the Department of Water Resources from receiving drought assistance from the state until the plan is submitted. This bill would require additional information to be included as part of an urban water management plan if groundwater is identified as a source of water available to the supplier. The bill would require an urban water supplier to include in the plan a description of all water supply projects and programs that may be undertaken to meet total projected water use. The bill would prohibit an urban water supplier that fails to prepare or submit the plan to the department from receiving funding made available from specified bond acts until the plan is submitted. The bill, until January 1, 2006, would require the department to take into consideration whether the urban water supplier has submitted an updated plan, as specified, in determining eligibility for funds made available pursuant to any program administered by the department. Existing law, under certain circumstances, requires a city or county that determines an environmental impact report is required in connection with a project, as defined, to request each public water system that may supply water for the project to assess, among other things, whether its total projected water supplies will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. Existing law requires the public water system to submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 30 days from the date on which the request was received and, in the absence of the submittal of an assessment, provides that it shall be assumed that the public water system has no information to submit. Existing law makes legislative findings and declarations concerning "Proposition a measure approved by the voters of San Diego County relating to regional growth management, and provides that the procedures established by a specified review board established in connection with that measure are deemed to comply with the requirements described above relating to water supply planning by a city or county. This bill would revise those provisions. The bill, instead, would require a city or county that determines a project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project and to request those public water systems to prepare a specified water supply assessment, except as otherwise specified. The bill would require the assessment to include, among other information, an identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-2 service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project and water received in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, and contracts. The bill would require the city or county, if it is not able to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, to prepare the water supply assessment after a prescribed consultation. The bill would revise the definition of "project," for the purposes of these provisions, and make related changes. The bill would prescribe a timeframe within which a public water system is required to submit the assessment to the city or county and would authorize the city or county to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the public water system to comply with requirements relating to the submission of the assessment. The bill would require the public water system, or the city or county, as applicable, if that entity concludes that water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, to submit the plans for acquiring additional water supplies. The bill would require the city or county to include the water supply assessment and certain other information in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to the act. By establishing duties for counties and cities, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that the County of San Diego is deemed to comply with these water supply planning requirements if the Office of Planning and Research determines that certain requirements have been met in connection with the implementation of "Proposition The bill would incorporate additional changes in Section 10631 of the Water Code proposed by AB 901, to be operative only if this bill and AB 901 are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2002, each bill amends Section 10631 of the Water Code, and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: The length and severity of droughts in California cannot be predicted with any accuracy. There are various factors that affect the ability to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to meet all of California's water demands, now and in the future. Because of these factors, it is not possible to guarantee a permanent water supply for all water users in California in the amounts requested. Therefore, it is critical that California's water agencies carefully assess the reliability of their water supply and delivery systems. Furthermore, California's overall water delivery system has become less reliable over the last 20 years because demand for water has continued to grow while new supplies have not been developed in amounts sufficient to meet the increased demand. There are a variety of measures for developing new water supplies ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-3 including water reclamation, water conservation, conjunctive use, water ( transfers, seawater desalination, and surface water and groundwater ' storage. With increasing frequency, California's water agencies are required to impose water rationing on their residential and business customers during this state's frequent and severe periods of drought. The identification and development of water supplies needed during multiple-year droughts is vital to California's business climate, as well as to the health of the agricultural industry, environment, rural communities, and residents who continue to face the possibility of severe water cutbacks during water shortage periods. A recent study indicates that the water supply and land use planning linkage, established by Part 2.10 (commencing with Section 10910) of Division 6 of the Water Code, has not been implemented in a manner that ensures the appropriate level of communication between water agencies and planning agencies, and this act is intended to remedy that deficiency in communication. It is the intent of the Legislature to strengthen the process pursuant to which local agencies determine the adequacy of existing and planned future water supplies to meet existing and planned future demands on those water supplies. SEC. 2. Section 21151.9 of the Public Resources Code is amended to read: 21151.9. Whenever a city or county determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912 of the Water Code, is subject to this division, it shall comply with Part 2.10 (commencing with Section 10910) of Division 6 of the Water Code. SEC. 3. Section 10631 of the Water Code is amended to read: 10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do all of the following: Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier's water management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments as described in subdivision If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan: A copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific authorization for groundwater management. A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-4 efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of the following: An average water year. A single dry water year. Multiple dry water years. For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to replace that source with alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable. Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis. Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five-year increments described in subdivision and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses: Single-family residential. Multifamily. Commercial. Industrial. Institutional and governmental. Landscape. Sales to other agencies. Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof. Agricultural. The water use projections shall be in the same five-year increments as described in subdivision Provide a description of the supplier's water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following: A description of each water demand management measure that is currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, including the steps necessary to implement any proposed measures, including, but not limited to, all of the following: Water survey programs for single-family residential and multifamily residential customers. Residential plumbing retrofit. System water audits, leak detection, and repair. Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections. Large landscape conservation programs and incentives. High-efficiency washing machine rebate programs. Public information programs. School education programs. Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-5 Wholesale agency programs. Conservation pricing. Water conservation coordinator. Water waste prohibition. Residential ultra-low-flush toilet replacement programs. A schedule of implementation for all water demand management measures proposed or described in the plan. A description of the methods, if any, that the supplier will use to evaluate the effectiveness of water demand management measures implemented or described under the plan. An estimate, if available, of existing conservation savings on water use within the supplier's service area, and the effect of such savings on the supplier's ability to further reduce demand. An evaluation of each water demand management measure listed in paragraph of subdivision that is not currently being implemented or scheduled for implementation. In the course of the evaluation, first consideration shall be given to water demand management measures, or combination of measures, that offer lower incremental costs than expanded or additional water supplies. This evaluation shall do all of the following: Take into account economic and noneconomic factors, including environmental, social, health, customer impact, and technological factors. Include a cost-benefit analysis, identifying total benefits and total costs. of funding available to implement any planned water supply project that would provide water at a higher unit cost. Include a description of the water supplier's legal authority to implement the measure and efforts to work with other relevant agencies to ensure the implementation of the measure and to share the cost of implementation. Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water use as established pursuant to subdivision of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs, other than the demand management programs identified pursuant to paragraph of subdivision that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of the water supply available to the urban water supplier in average, single dry, and multiple dry water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation time line for each project or program. Urban water suppliers that are members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council and submit annual reports to that council in accordance with the "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California," dated September 1991, may submit the annual reports identifying water demand management measures currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, to satisfy the requirements of subdivisions and SEC. 3.5. Section 10631 of the Water Code is amended to read: 10631. A plan shall be adopted in accordance with this chapter and shall do all of the following: Describe the service area of the supplier, including current and projected population, climate, and other demographic factors affecting the supplier's water ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-6 management planning. The projected population estimates shall be based upon data from the state, regional, or local service agency population projections within the service area of the urban water supplier and shall be in five-year increments to 20 years or as far as data is available. Identify and quantify, to the extent practicable, the existing and planned sources of water available to the supplier over the same five-year increments as described in subdivision If groundwater is identified as an existing or planned source of water available to the supplier, all of the following information shall be included in the plan: A copy of any groundwater management plan adopted by the urban water supplier, including plans adopted pursuant to Part 2.75 (commencing with Section 10750), or any other specific authorization for groundwater management. A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the urban water supplier pumps groundwater. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the urban water supplier has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current official departmental bulletin that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description of the efforts being undertaken by the urban water supplier to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. A detailed description and analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of groundwater pumped by the urban water supplier for the past five years. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the urban water supplier. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. Describe the reliability of the water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage, to the extent practicable, and provide data for each of the following: An average water year. A single dry water year. Multiple dry water years. For any water source that may not be available at a consistent level of use, given specific legal, environmental, water quality, or climatic factors, describe plans to supplement or replace that source with alternative sources or water demand management measures, to the extent practicable. Describe the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water on a short-term or long-term basis. Quantify, to the extent records are available, past and current water use, over the same five-year increments described in subdivision and projected water use, identifying the uses among water use sectors, including, but not necessarily limited to, all of the following uses: Single-family residential. Multifamily. Commercial. Industrial. Institutional and governmental. Landscape. Sales to other agencies. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-7 Saline water intrusion barriers, groundwater recharge, or conjunctive use, or any combination thereof. Agricultural. The water use projections shall be in the same five-year increments as described in subdivision Provide a description of the supplier's water demand management measures. This description shall include all of the following: A description of each water demand management measure that is currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, including the steps necessary to implement any proposed measures, including, but not limited to, all of the following: \ Water survey programs for single-family residential and multifamily residential customers. Residential plumbing retrofit. System water audits, leak detection, and repair. Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of existing connections. Large landscape conservation programs and incentives. High-efficiency washing machine rebate programs. Public information programs. School education programs. Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts. Wholesale agency programs. Conservation pricing. Water conservation coordinator. Water waste prohibition. Residential ultra-low-flush toilet replacement programs. A schedule of implementation for all water demand management measures proposed or described in the plan. A description of the methods, if any, that the supplier will use to evaluate the effectiveness of water demand management measures implemented or described under the plan. An estimate, if available, of existing conservation savings on water use within the supplier's service area, and the effect of the savings on the supplier's ability to further reduce demand. An evaluation of each water demand management measure listed in paragraph of subdivision that is not currently being implemented or scheduled for implementation. In the course of the evaluation, first consideration shall be given to water demand management measures, or combination of measures, that offer lower incremental costs than expanded or additional water supplies. This evaluation shall do all of the following: Take into account economic and noneconomic factors, including environmental, social, health, customer impact, and technological factors. Include a cost-benefit analysis, identifying total benefits and total costs. Include a description of funding available to implement any planned water supply project that would provide water at a higher unit cost. Include a description of the water supplier's legal authority to implement the measure and efforts to work with other relevant agencies to ensure the implementation of the measure and to share the cost of implementation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-8 Include a description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the urban water supplier to meet the total projected water use as established pursuant to subdivision of Section 10635. The urban water supplier shall include a detailed description of expected future projects and programs, other than the demand management programs identified pursuant to paragraph of subdivision that the urban water supplier may implement to increase the amount of the water supply available to the urban water supplier in average, single dry, and multiple dry water years. The description shall identify specific projects and include a description of the increase in water supply that is expected to be available from each project. The description shall include an estimate with regard to the implementation timeline for each project or program. Urban water suppliers that are members of the California Urban Water Conservation Council and submit annual reports to that council in accordance with the "Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California," dated September 1991, may submit the annual reports identifying water demand management measures currently being implemented, or scheduled for implementation, to satisfy the requirements of subdivisions and SEC. 4. Section 10656 of the Water Code is amended to read: 10656. An urban water supplier that does not prepare, adopt, and submit its urban water management plan to the department in accordance with this part, is ineligible to receive funding pursuant to Division 24 (commencing with Section 78500) or Division 26 (commencing with Section 79000), or receive drought assistance from the state until the urban water management plan is submitted pursuant to this article. SEC. 4.3. Section 10657 is added to the Water Code, to read: 10657. The department shall take into consideration whether the urban water supplier has submitted an updated urban water management plan that is consistent with Section 10631, as amended by the act that adds this section, in determining whether the urban water supplier is eligible for funds made available pursuant to any program administered by the department. This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,2006, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2006, deletes or extends that date. SEC. 4.5. Section 10910 of the Water Code is amended to read: 10910. Any city or county that determines that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code shall comply with this part. The city or county, at the time that it determines whether an environmental impact report, a negative declaration, or a mitigated negative declaration is required for any project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall identify any water system that is, or may become as a result of supplying water to the project identified pursuant to this subdivision, a public water system, as defined in Section 10912, that may supply water for the project. If the city or county is not able to identify any public water system that may supply water for the project, the city or county shall prepare the water assessment required by this part after consulting with any entity serving domestic water supplies whose service area ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-9 includes the project site, the local agency formation commission, and any public water system adjacent to the project site. The city or county, at the time it makes the determination required under Section 21080.1 of the Public Resources Code, shall request each public water system identified pursuant to subdivision to determine whether the projected water demand associated with a proposed project was included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan adopted pursuant to Part 2.6 (commencing with Section 10610). If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, the public water system may incorporate the requested information from the urban water management plan in preparing the elements of the assessment required to comply with subdivisions and If the projected water demand associated with the proposed project was not accounted for in the most recently adopted urban water management plan, or the public water system has no urban water management plan, the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the public water system's total projected water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the public water system's existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. If the city or county is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision the water supply assessment for the project shall include a discussion with regard to whether the total projected water supplies, determined to be available by the city or county for the project during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection, will meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. The assessment required by this section shall include an identification of any existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project, and a description of the quantities of water received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts. An identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision shall be demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following: Written contracts or other proof of entitlement to an identified water supply. Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply that has been adopted by the public water system. Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated with delivering the water supply. Any necessary regulatory approvals that are required in order to be able to conveyor deliver the water supply. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-10 If no water has been received in prior years by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision under the existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision shall also include in its water supply assessment pursuant to subdivision an identification of the other public water systems or water service contract holders that receive a water supply or have existing water supply entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts, to the same source of water as the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision has identified as a source of water supply within its water supply assessments. If a water supply for a proposed project includes groundwater, the following additional information shall be included in the water supply assessment: A review of any information contained in the urban water management plan relevant to the identified water supply for the proposed project. A description of any groundwater basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied. For those basins for which a court or the board has adjudicated the rights to pump groundwater, a copy of the order or decree adopted by the court or the board and a description of the amount of groundwater the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision has the legal right to pump under the order or decree. For basins that have not been adjudicated, information as to whether the department has identified the basin or basins as overdrafted or has projected that the basin will become overdrafted if present management conditions continue, in the most current bulletin of the department that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin, and a detailed description by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision of the efforts being undertaken in the basin or basins to eliminate the long-term overdraft condition. A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision for the past five years from any groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. A detailed description and analysis of the amount and location of groundwater that is projected to be pumped by the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision from any basin from which the proposed project will be supplied. The description and analysis shall be based on information that is reasonably available, including, but not limited to, historic use records. An analysis of the sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. A water supply assessment shall not be required to include the information required by this paragraph if the public water system determines, as part of the review required by paragraph that the sufficiency of groundwater necessary to meet the initial and projected water demand associated with the project was ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-11 addressed in the description and analysis required by paragraph of subdivision of Section 10631. Subject to paragraph the governing body of each public water system shall submit the assessment to the city or county not later than 90 days from the date on which the request was received. The governing body of each public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this act pursuant to subdivision shall approve the assessment prepared pursuant to this section at a regular or special meeting. Prior to the expiration of the 90-day period, if the public water system intends to request an extension of time to prepare and adopt the assessment, the public water system shall meet with the city or county to request an extension of time, which shall not exceed 30 days, to prepare and adopt the assessment. If the public water system fails to request an extension of time, or fails to submit the assessment notwithstanding the extension of time granted pursuant to paragraph the city or county may seek a writ of mandamus to compel the governing body of the public water system to comply with the requirements of this part relating to the submission of the water supply assessment. Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, if a project has been the subject of a water supply assessment that complies with the requirements of this part, no additional water supply assessment shall be required for subsequent projects that were part of a larger project for which a water supply assessment was completed and that has complied with the requirements of this part and for which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision has concluded that its water supplies are sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project, in addition to the existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses, unless one or more of the following changes occurs: Changes in the project that result in a substantial increase in water demand for the project. Changes in the circumstances or conditions substantially affecting the ability of the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision to provide a sufficient supply of water for the project. Significant new information becomes available which was not known and could not have been known at the time when the assessment was prepared. SEC. 5. Section 10911 of the Water Code is amended to read: 10911. ( a) If, as a result of its assessment, the public water system concludes that its water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, the public water system shall provide to the city or county its plans for acquiring additional water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. If the city or county, if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision concludes as a result of its assessment, that water supplies are, or will be, insufficient, the city or county shall include in its water supply assessment its plans for acquiring additional water supplies, setting forth the measures that are being undertaken to acquire and develop those water supplies. Those plans may include, but are not limited to, information concerning all of the following: The estimated total costs, and the proposed method of financing the costs, associated with acquiring the additional water supplies. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-12 All federal, state, and local permits, approvals, or entitlements that are anticipated to be required in order to acquire and develop the additional water supplies. Based on the considerations set forth in paragraphs and the estimated timeframes within which the public water system, or the city or county if either is required to comply with this part pursuant to subdivision expects to be able to acquire additional water supplies. The city or county shall include the water supply assessment provided pursuant to Section 10910, and any information provided pursuant to subdivision in any environmental document prepared for the project pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code. The city or county may include in any environmental document an evaluation of any information included in that environmental document provided pursuant to subdivision The city or county shall determine, based on the entire record, whether projected water supplies will be sufficient to satisfy the demands of the project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. If the city or county determines that water supplies will not be sufficient, the city or county shall include that determination in its findings for the project. SEC. 6. Section 10912 of the Water Code is amended to read: 10912. For the purposes of this part, the following terms have the following meanings: "Project" means any of the following: A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units. A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space. A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space. A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms. A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area. A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision. A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then "project" means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections, or a mixed-use project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections. "Public water system" means a system for the provision of piped water to the public for human consumption that has 3000 or more service connections. A public water system includes all of the following: Any collection, treatment, storage, and distribution facility under control of the operator of the system which is used primarily in connection with the system. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A Senate Bill No. 610 Page A-13 Any collection or pretreatment storage facility not under the control of the operator that is used primarily in connection with the system. Any person who treats water on behalf of one or more public water systems for the purpose of rendering it safe for human consumption. SEC. 7. Section 10913 of the Water Code is repealed. SEC. 8. Section 10915 of the Water Code is amended to read: 10915. The County of San Diego is deemed to comply with this part if the Office of Planning and Research determines that all of the following conditions have been met: Proposition C, as approved by the voters of the County of San Diego in November 1988, requires the development of a regional growth management plan and directs the establishment of a regional planning and growth management review board. The County of San Diego and the cities in the county, by agreement, designate the San Diego Association of Governments as that review board. A regional growth management strategy that provides for a comprehensive regional strategy and a coordinated economic development and growth management program has been developed pursuant to Proposition C. The regional growth management strategy includes a water element to coordinate planning for water that is consistent with the requirements of this part. The San Diego County Water Authority, by agreement with the San Diego Association of Governments in its capacity as the review board, uses the association's most recent regional growth forecasts for planning purposes and to implement the water element of the strategy. The procedures established by the review board for the development and approval of the regional growth management strategy, including the water element and any certification process established to ensure that a project is consistent with that element, comply with the requirements of this part. , The environmental documents for a project located in the County of San Diego include information that accomplishes the same purposes as a water supply assessment that is prepared pursuant to Section 10910. SEC. 9. Section 3.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 10631 of the Water Code proposed by both this bill and AB 901. It shall only become operative if both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1,2002, each bill amends Section 10631 of the Water Code, and this bill is enacted after AB 901, in which case Section 3 of this bill shall not become operative. SEC. 10. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B Resolution Adopting WSA [Provided in Final Report] ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Bulletin 118 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Bulletin 118 Page C-1 San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Modesto Subbasin . Groundwater Subbasin Number: 5-22.02 . County: Stanislaus . Surface Area: 247,000 acres (385 square miles) Basin Boundaries and Hydrology The San Joaquin Valley is surrounded on the west by the Coast Ranges, on the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains, on the east by the Sierra Nevada and on the north by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley. The northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley drains toward the Delta by the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, the Fresno, Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Rivers. The southern portion of the valley is internally drained by the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern Rivers that flow into the Tulare drainage basin including the beds of the former Tulare, Buena Vista, and Kern Lakes. The Modesto subbasin lies between the Stanislaus River to the north and Tuolumne River to the south and between the San Joaquin River on the west and basement rock of the Sierra Nevada foothills on the east. The northern, western, and southern boundaries are shared with the Eastern San Joaquin Valley, Delta-Mendota, and Turlock Groundwater Subbasins, respectively. The subbasin comprises land primarily in the Modesto Irrigation District (MID) and the southern two-thirds of the Oakdale Irrigation District (OID). The City of Modesto is in the southwestern portion of the subbasin. Average annual precipitation for this subbasin is 11 to 15 inches, increasing eastward. Hydrogeologic Information The San Joaquin Valley represents the southern portion of the Great Central Valley of California. The San Joaquin Valley is a structural trough up to 200 miles long and 70 miles wide. It is filled with up to 32,000 feet of marine and continental sediments deposited during periodic inundation by the Pacific Ocean and by erosion of the surrounding mountains, respectively. Continental deposits shed from the surrounding mountains form an alluvial wedge that thickens from the valley margins toward the axis of the structural trough. This depositional axis is below to west of the series of rivers, lakes, sloughs, and marshes, which mark the current and historic axis of surface drainage in the San Joaquin Valley. Water Bearing Formations The primary hydrogeologic units in the Modesto Subbasin include both consolidated and unconsolidated sedimentary deposits. The consolidated deposits include the lone Formation of Miocene age, the Valley Springs Formation of Eocene age, and the Mehrten Formation, which was deposited during the Miocene to Pliocene Epochs. The consolidated deposits lie in the eastern portion of the subbasin and generally yield small quantities of water to wells except for the Mehrten Formation, which is an important aquifer. In the Subbasin, the Mehrten Formation is composed of up to 300 feet of sandstone, breccia, conglomerate, tuff siltstone and claystone (page 1973). ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Bulletin 118 Page C-2 The unconsolidated deposits were laid down during the Pliocene to present and, from oldest to youngest, include continental deposits lacustrine and marsh deposits, older alluvium, younger alluvium, and flood-subbasin deposits. The continental deposits and older alluvium are the main water- yielding units in the unconsolidated deposits. The lacustrine and marsh deposits (which include the Corcoran, or Clay), and the flood- subbasin deposits yield little water to wells, and the younger alluvium in most places probably yields only moderate quantities of water to wells (Page 1973). The continental deposits consist of poorly sorted gravel, sand, silt and clay varying in thickness from 0 to 450 feet occurring at the surface on the eastern side of the subbasin to over 400 feet deep in the western portion. These deposits are the equivalent of the North Merced Gravels and the lower Turlock Lake Formation (Davis and others 1959). The older alluvium consists of intercalated beds of gravel sand, silt and clay with some hardpan. This alluvium is up to 400 feet thick and is generally present near or at the surface of the western one-half of the subbasin. The older alluvium is largely equivalent to the Riverbank and Modesto Formations (Davis and others 1959). Ground water occurs under unconfined, semi-confined, and confined conditions. The unconfined water body occurs in the unconsolidated deposits above and east of the Corcoran Clay, which underlies the southwestern portion of the subbasin at depths ranging from 150 to 250 feet (DWR 1981). Where clay lenses restrict the downward flow of ground water, semi-confined conditions occur. The confined water body occurs in the unconsolidated deposits below the Corcoran Clay and extends downward to the base of fresh water. The estimated average specific yield of this subbasin is 8.8 percent (based on DWR San Joaquin District internal data and Davis and others 1959). Restrictive Structures Groundwater flow is primarily to the southwest, following the regional dip of basement rock and sedimentary units. The lower to middle reaches of the Stanislaus and Tuolomne Rivers in the Subbasin appear to be gaining streams with groundwater flow into both, especially the Tuolomne River (DWR 2000). No faults have been identified that affect the movement of fresh groundwater (Page and Balding 1973). Recharge Areas Groundwater recharge is primarily from deep percolation of applied irrigation water and canal seepage from MID and OlD facilities. Seepage from Modesto Reservoir is also significant 1995). Lesser recharge occurs as a result of subsurface flows originating in the mountains and foothills along the east side of the subbasin, losses from minor streams, and from percolation of direct precipitation. Groundwater Level Trends Changes in groundwater levels are based on annual water level measurements by DWR and cooperators. Water level changes were evaluated by quarter township and computed through a custom DWR computer program using geostatistics (kriging). On average, the ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Bulletin 118 Page C-3 subbasin water level has declined nearly 15 feet from 1970 through 2000. The period from 1970 through 1978 showed steep declines totaling about 12 feet. The six-year period from 1978 to 1984 saw stabilization and rebound of about 7 feet. 1984 through 1995 again showed steep declines, bottoming out in 1995 at nearly 20 feet below the 1970 level. Water levels then rose about 5 feet from 1996 to 2000. Water level declines have been more severe in the eastern portion of the subbasin, but have risen faster in the eastern subbasin between 1996 and 2000 than in any other portion of the subbasin. Groundwater Storage Estimations of the total storage capacity of the subbasin and the amount of water in storage as of 1995 were calculated using an estimated specific yield of 8.8 percent and water levels collected by DWR and cooperators. According to these calculations, the total storage capacity of this subbasin is estimated to be 6,500,000 af to a depth of 300 feet. According to published literature, the amount of stored groundwater in this subbasin as of 1961 is 14,000,000 af to a depth of 1000 feet (Williamson 1989). Groundwater Budget (Type B) Although a detailed budget was not available for this subbasin, an estimate of groundwater demand was calculated based on the 1990 normalized year and data on land and water use. A subsequent analysis was done by a DWR water budget spreadsheet to estimate overall applied water demands, agricultural groundwater pumpage, urban pumping demand and other extraction data. Natural recharge into the subbasin is estimated to be 86,000 af. Artificial recharge and subsurface inflow values are not determined. There is approximately 92,000 af of applied water recharge. Annual urban and agricultural extractions are estimated to be 81,000 and 145,000 af, respectively. There are no other extractions, and values for subsurface outflow are not determined. Groundwater Quality Characterization. The groundwater in this basin is of a calcium bicarbonate type in the eastern subbasin to a calcium-magnesium bicarbonate or calcium-sodium bicarbonate type in the western portion. TDS values range from 60 to 8,300 mg/L, with a typical range of 200 to 500 mg/L. The Department of Health Services, which monitors Title 22 water quality standards, reports TDS values in 88 wells ranging from 60 to 860 mg/L, with an average value of 295 mg/L. Impairments. There are areas of hard groundwater and localized areas of high chloride, boron, DBCP, nitrate, iron, and manganese. Some sodium chloride waters of high TDS values are found along the east side of the subbasin. There are also some areas of shallow groundwater in the subbasin that require dewatering wells. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Bulletin 118 Page C-4 WATER QUALITY IN PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS Constituent Group1 Number of wells sampled2 Number of wells with a concentration above an MCL3 Inorganics - Primary 110 3 110 3 Radiological 109 25 109 25 Nitrates 114 3 114 3 Pesticides 117 14 117 14 VOCs and SOCs 117 8 117 8 Inorganics - Secondary 110 8 1 A description of each member in the constituent groups and a generalized discussion of the relevance of these groups are included in California's Groundwater - Bulletin 118 by DWR (2003). 2 Represents distinct number of wells sampled as required under DHS Title 22 program from 1994 through 2000. 3 Each well reported with a concentration above an MCL was confirmed with a second detection above an MCL. This information is intended as an indicator of the types of activities that cause contamination in a given basin. It represents the water quality at the sample location. It does not indicate the water quality delivered to the consumer. More detailed drinking water quality information can be obtained from the local water purveyor and its annual Consumer Confidence Report. Well Characteristics Well yields (gal/min) Municipal/Irrigation Range: 350-4,500 Average: 1,000 – 2,000 Total Depths (ft) Domestic Municipal/Irrigation Range: 50 - 500 Active Monitoring Data Agency Parameter Number of Wells/ Measurement Frequency DWR (incl. Cooperators) Groundwater levels 230/Semi-annually Oakdale Irrigation District Drinking Water Parameters to every 3 years Department of Health Services (incl. Cooperators) Title 22 Water Quality 209/Varies ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Bulletin 118 Page C-5 Basin Management Groundwater management The Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers' Groundwater Subbasin Association has developed an AB3030 ground water management plan for the individual Association members (City of Modesto, Del Este Water Company, County of Stanislaus, Oakdale I.D., City of Oakdale, City of Riverbank, and Modesto I.D.) Conjunctive use programs, storm water recharge subbasins, water conservation programs operated by Oakdale and Modesto I.Ds., Stanislaus County and other public entities. Water agencies Public Oakdale I.D., Modesto I.D.; Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers' Groundwater Subbasin Association; City of Oakdale; City of Riverbank Private References Cited California Department of Water Resources (DWR), San Joaquin District. Unpublished Land and Water Use Data. . Well completion report files. . 1981. Depth to Top of Corcoran Clay. 1:253,440 scale map. . 1995. Internal computer spreadsheet for 1990 normal computation of net water demand used in preparation of DWR Bulletin 160-93. . 2000 Spring 1999, Lines of Equal Elevation of Water in Wells, Unconfined Aquifer. 1 :253,440 scale map sheet. Davis, GH, Green, JR, Olmstead, SH, and Brown, DW. 1959. Ground Water Conditions and Storage Capacity in the San Joaquin Valley, California; US Geological Survey Water Supply Paper No. 1469, 287p. Page, RW, and Balding, GO. 1973. Geology and Quality of Water in the Modesto-Merced Area, San Joaquin Valley, California, with a Brief Section of Hydrology. USGS Water- Resources Investigations 6-73, 85p. Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers' Groundwater Subbasin Association 1995. Development of a Groundwater Management Plan Phase I. Technical Memorandum. Prepared by Black & Veatch, Provost & Pritchard, and Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates Consulting Firms. Williamson, Alex K, Prudic, David E, and Swain, Lindsay A. 1989. Groundwater flow in the Central Valley, California. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 1401-D. 127 p. ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C Bulletin 118 Page C-6 Additional References Balding, GO, and Page, RW. 1971. Data for Wells in the Modesto-Merced Area San Joaquin Valley, California. US Geological Survey Open-File Report. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 1980. Bulletin 118-80, Ground Water Subbasins in California. 1994. Bulletin 160-93. California Water Plan Update, Vol. I. Davis, SN and Hall, FR. 1959. Water Quality of Eastern Stanislaus and North Merced Counties, California; Stanford Univ. Pubs., Geol. Sci., v. 6, no. I. 112 p. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK---